State of Washington v. Hugh Allen Putnam, 37588-9

Appellant Hugh Putnam (born 1956) is serving a decades-long sentence for multiple firearm assault convictions; he was sentenced in 2003 and received 414 months.
Putnam has serious chronic medical conditions (ulcerative colitis with a permanent stoma, type 1 diabetes, COPD, hypertension, prior stroke) and argued COVID-19 created a grave mortality risk.
In November 2019 Putnam filed a clemency petition seeking medical commutation; in April 2020 he moved in superior court under CrR 7.8 for emergency early release or medical furlough pending clemency proceedings.
The State argued CrR 7.8 does not authorize a court to grant early release once a sentence is final and that RCW allocation of authority gives DOC/executive branch exclusive control over medical release.
The superior court denied the motion; the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the judiciary lacks authority to grant early medical releases absent defects in the judgment or inability to execute the sentence as imposed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether CrR 7.8(b)(5) authorizes the trial court to order early release on medical/epidemiological grounds (COVID-19 plus Putnam’s conditions)	CrR 7.8(b)(5) is a catch‑all that lets the sentencing court revisit sentences for extraordinary circumstances that arose after sentencing (pandemic + medical vulnerability)	CrR 7.8(b)(5) is limited to correcting defects in the judgment or circumstances that make the sentence impossible to execute as the court originally intended; authority to grant medical release rests with DOC/exec branch	Denied: CrR 7.8(b)(5) does not authorize courts to order early medical release here; jurisdiction over early/medical release lies with DOC and the Clemency & Pardons Board

January v. Porter, 75 Wn.2d 768 (1969) (judicial authority ends with final judgment; parole and execution of sentence are executive functions)
State v. Shove, 113 Wn.2d 83 (1989) (courts may vacate or alter final judgments in limited circumstances when interests of justice require)
State v. Klump, 80 Wn. App. 391 (1996) (relief under CrR 7.8(b)(5) appropriate where referenced federal sentence was invalidated, making state sentence defective)
State v. Cortez, 73 Wn. App. 838 (1994) (CrR 7.8(b)(5) not available where the relevant condition existed at sentencing)
State v. Smith, 159 Wn. App. 694 (2011) (CrR 7.8(b)(5) may permit resentencing when an unforeseeable change undermines the sentencing court’s original basis; noted limits on judicial early release under the SRA)
State v. Hale, 94 Wn. App. 46 (1999) (after final judgment, legal authority over custody transfers to the Department of Corrections and executive agencies)