(dissenting) — Kenneth Trambitas and Richard Blakesley seek relief from disposition orders of the Spokane County Juvenile Court. They challenge the court's failure to credit their dispositions with the time they spent in pretrial detention. Neither Trambitas nor Blakesley appealed the juvenile court's disposition orders. Instead, they both filed personal restraint petitions. The majority *335grants their petitions, holding that the due process and equal protection clauses of the United States Constitution require that credit be given to juveniles for pretrial detention time. I would deny the petitions.
As the majority points out, the petitioners advance both statutory and constitutional arguments. The court has repeatedly stated that a nonconstitutional issue which could have been raised on direct appeal may not be raised for the first time in a personal restraint petition. In re Schellong, 94 Wn.2d 314, 318, 616 P.2d 1233 (1980); State v. Wicke, 91 Wn.2d 638, 645, 591 P.2d 452 (1979); In re Myers, 91 Wn.2d 120,122, 587 P.2d 532 (1978), cert. denied sub nom. Myers v. Washington, 442 U.S. 912, 61 L. Ed. 2d 278, 99 S. Ct. 2828 (1979). Furthermore, the court has held that "those issues, constitutional or nonconstitutional, which were known or could have been known yet were not raised at trial nor on direct appeal, may not be raised on collateral attack." In re Haynes, 95 Wn.2d 648, 651, 628 P.2d 809 (1981). Accord, In re Lee, 95 Wn.2d 357, 363, 623 P.2d 687 (1980); In re Myers, supra. See ABA Standards Relating to Post Conviction Remedies, Std. 6.1(c) (Approved Draft, 1968).
Petitioners had a right of appeal under RCW 13.04.033:
Any person aggrieved by a final order of the [juvenile] court may appeal the order as provided by this section.
The issues petitioners raised were known or should have been known at the disposition hearing, and could have been raised at that time or on appeal. The issues were not raised at the hearings and petitioners failed to exercise their rights of appeal. They should be precluded from raising at this time either constitutional or nonconstitutional objections to the juvenile court's disposition orders.
Even if these procedural rules did not apply, however, there is no constitutional violation involved here.
The Juvenile Justice Act of 1977 places considerable discretion for the imposition of what the trial judge considers to be an appropriate sentence. See In re Schellong, supra. *336The explicit purpose of the act is to provide for treatment, supervision and custody commensurate with the age, crime and criminal history of the juvenile offender. RCW 13.40-.010. The scope of authority which the court has for the disposition of juvenile offenders is found in RCW 13.40.160. Significantly, the sentencing judge is not required in every case to adhere rigidly to the sentencing structure of the act. Where there is a finding that the specified disposition would be a manifest injustice (impose an excessive penalty on the juvenile or a clear danger to society in light of the purposes of RCW 13.40.020(12)), the sentencing judge may diverge from the guidelines suggested by RCW 13.40.160(1), (2) and (4). In such a case, the judge may order commitment to a juvenile correctional institution until the offender's 21st birthday. RCW 13.40.300.
Washington courts have repeatedly ruled that the exercise of discretion in sentencing is not a denial of equal protection. E.g., Jansen v. Morris, 87 Wn.2d 258, 261, 551 P.2d 743 (1976); State v. Blanchey, 75 Wn.2d 926, 939, 454 P.2d 841 (1969); State v. Boggs, 57 Wn.2d 484, 490, 358 P.2d 124 (1961); State v. Nixon, 10 Wn. App. 355, 358, 517 P.2d 212 (1973). In Blanchey, the court distinguished between discretion in choosing the degree of the charge and discretion in fixing the sentence:
[The distinction] results from a meeting of our two goals of treating all men equally in the guilt determination process while retaining some flexibility and individualized treatment at the punishment stage.
Blanchey, at 940.
The federal courts also have voiced their approval of discretionary sentencing. In Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. 241, 93 L. Ed. 1337, 69 S. Ct. 1079 (1949), the United States Supreme Court declared that, "The belief no longer prevails that every offense in a like legal category calls for an identical punishment without regard to the past life and habits of a particular offender." Williams, at 247. The exercise of discretionary power to impose varying sentences does not deny an accused the equal protection of the Four*337teenth Amendment. Morrison v. Walker, 404 F.2d 1046, 1048 (9th Cir. 1968); Andrus v. Turner, 421 F.2d 290, 292 (10th Cir. 1970); Bratton v. Sigler, 235 F. Supp. 448 (D. Neb. 1964). The reasoning in these cases is that allowing discretion enables the sentencing judge to consider such factors as the defendant's background, probable rehabilitation benefits or any extenuating circumstances. Bratton v. Sigler, supra at 449. Accord, Andrus v. Turner, supra at 292. In another context (selective enforcement of recidivist statutes), the Supreme Court suggested that the equal protection clause requires only that discretion not be deliberately based upon an unjustifiable standard such as race, religion or other arbitrary classification. See Oyler v. Boles, 368 U.S. 448, 456, 7 L. Ed. 2d 446, 82 S. Ct. 501 (1962).
Several courts have held that it is a denial of equal protection not to grant a prisoner credit for jail time served after he has been unable to meet bail due to indigency when his sentence plus the previous jail time adds up to a total period of incarceration longer than the maximum allowable term prescribed by law for the offense committed. See, e.g., Parker v. Estelle, 498 F.2d 625 (5th Cir. 1974); Hook v. Arizona, 496 F.2d 1172 (9th Cir. 1974); Hill v. Wainwright, 465 F.2d 414 (5th Cir. 1972); Hart v. Henderson, 449 F.2d 183 (5th Cir. 1971); Reanier v. Smith, 83 Wn.2d 342, 517 P.2d 949 (1974) (credit on statutory maximum and minimum sentences); In re Young, 32 Cal. App. 3d 68, 107 Cal. Rptr. 915 (1973) (credit on minimum sentence). Where a prisoner receives less than the maximum possible sentence, however, the federal courts consistently hold that he is not constitutionally required to receive credit for pretrial detention. Pernell v. Rose, 486 F.2d 301 (6th Cir. 1973); Lambdin v. United States, 439 F.2d 1402 (6th Cir. 1971); United States v. Whitfield, 411 F.2d 545 (8th Cir. 1969); United States v. Deaton, 364 F.2d 820 (6th Cir. 1966); Davis v. Parratt, 460 F. Supp. 1227 (D. Neb. 1978). Some courts "conclusively presume" that credit for pretrial detention was given " [w] her ever it is possible, as a matter of mechanical calculation, that credit could have *338been given". Stapf v. United States, 367 F.2d 326, 330 (D.C. Cir. 1966). Accord, United States v. Whitfield, supra at 546; Davis v. Parratt, supra at 1233. But see King v. Wyrick, 516 F.2d 321, 325 (8th Cir. 1975) (record conclusively demonstrated that jail time credit denied); Padgett v. United States, 387 F.2d 649 (4th Cir. 1967) (Stapf presumption rejected).
In the present case, unlike in Reanier v. Smith, supra, relied upon by the majority, the statute under which the petitioners were sentenced did not require a mandatory minimum sentence, and the sentences imposed were less than the statutory maximum (which, under RCW 13.40-.300(1), is the offender's twenty-first birthday). Unlike in Reanier, the petitioners' sentences plus the previous detention time did not add up to a total period of incarceration longer than the maximum allowable term prescribed by law for the offense committed. Therefore, the denial of credit for pretrial detention time here was not a violation of the petitioners' rights under the fourteenth amendment of the United States Constitution.
Brachtenbach, C.J., and Hicks and Dimmick, JJ., concur with Dolliver, J.