The Washington Court of Appeals has ruled on the postsentence review of Kurtis William Monschke, who was convicted of aggravated first degree murder. The court's decision, filed on September 29, 2026, clarifies the amount of earned early release time (ERT) Monschke is entitled to after a resentencing hearing. This ruling affects how similar cases will be handled in the future regarding ERT for serious violent offenses.
The case arose from a complex legal history involving Monschke, who was originally sentenced to life without the possibility of parole (LWOP) for his crime. However, a Supreme Court decision deemed mandatory LWOP sentences for young offenders unconstitutional. As a result, Monschke was resentenced to 450 months in prison. The Department of Corrections (DOC) challenged the amount of ERT he was granted, leading to this court review.
Kurtis Monschke was convicted in 2004 for a murder committed in March 2003 when he was just 19 years old. Under Washington law at the time, a conviction for aggravated first degree murder resulted in a mandatory LWOP sentence. In 2021, the Washington Supreme Court ruled that such sentences for offenders aged 18 to 20 were unconstitutional, paving the way for resentencing. In 2025, Monschke was resentenced to 450 months, with a provision allowing for ERT of up to one-third of his sentence.
The DOC filed a petition challenging the one-third ERT provision, arguing that aggravated first degree murder should be classified as a serious violent offense, which would limit ERT to 15 percent of the sentence. Monschke contended that the sentencing court did not err, as aggravated first degree murder is not classified as a serious violent offense under current law. The Pierce County prosecutor's office supported the DOC's position, arguing that the sentencing court lacked the authority to determine ERT.
The court ruled that the sentencing court erred in allowing the one-third ERT for Monschke. The judges pointed out that under Washington law, aggravated first degree murder is indeed classified as a serious violent offense, which restricts ERT to a maximum of 15 percent. The ruling stated, "the sentencing court lacked the statutory authority to determine ERT," and therefore, the entire ERT provision must be struck from the sentence.
Judge Maxa, along with Chief Judge Veljacic and Judge Cruser, concurred in this decision. The court emphasized that the DOC is the only entity authorized to grant ERT, and any attempt by the sentencing court to impose such provisions was beyond its legal authority.
This ruling has significant implications for future cases involving serious violent offenses in Washington. It clarifies that sentencing courts cannot impose their own determinations regarding ERT; such decisions are exclusively within the purview of the DOC. This could affect numerous offenders who may be seeking similar resentencing or early release time calculations.
As a result of this ruling, the sentencing court will need to remove the unauthorized ERT provision from Monschke's sentence. This decision reinforces the legal framework governing sentencing and early release in Washington, ensuring that the DOC retains control over ERT calculations.
Looking ahead, it is unclear if Monschke or the DOC will appeal this decision. However, the ruling sets a clear precedent regarding the authority of sentencing courts in determining ERT for serious violent offenses. The legal landscape for similar cases may continue to evolve as more challenges arise in the wake of this ruling.