In MATTER OF BRAUN v. Belnap

Washington Supreme Court

In MATTER OF BRAUN v. Belnap

316 P.2d 472, 51 Wash. 2d 892

CourtWashington Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 17, 1957

Docket34350

StatusPublished

This text of 316 P.2d 472 (In MATTER OF BRAUN v. Belnap) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Washington Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In MATTER OF BRAUN v. Belnap, 316 P.2d 472, 51 Wash. 2d 892 (Wash. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

51 Wn.2d 892 (1957) 316 P.2d 472

In the Matter of the Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus of LAWRENCE R. BRAUN, JR., Petitioner,
v.
RAY BELNAP, as Superintendent of the State Reformatory, Respondent.^[1]

No. 34350.

The Supreme Court of Washington, Department One.

October 17, 1957.

Lawrence R. Braun, Jr., pro se.

The Attorney General and Michael R. Alfieri, Assistant, for respondent.

PER CURIAM:

The petitioner was found guilty of a violation of RCW 9.54.020, Rem. Rev. Stat. § 2601-1, and on May 10, 1955, was sentenced to imprisonment for a period of not more than twenty years. (He was at the same time sentenced to not more than fifteen years on a conviction for the crime of second-degree burglary [a violation of RCW 9.19.020, Rem. Rev. Stat., § 2579], the two offenses being charged in the same information, and the sentences to run concurrently.)

The petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus is devoid of merit, his contentions being concerned with the admission of evidence, which should have been reviewed by appeal. No complaint is made concerning the excessive sentence for the violation of RCW 9.54.020, supra, but the assistant attorney general points out that the maximum for the offense charged should be ten years, RCW 9.92.010, Rem. Rev. Stat., § 2265, instead of twenty. In re Klapproth v. Squier (1957), 50 Wn. (2d) 675, 314 P. (2d) 430; In re Richey v. Squier (1957), ante p. 38, 315 P. (2d) 638.

For the reasons indicated in In re Klapproth v. Squier, supra, and in In re Richey v. Squier, supra, the petitioner is to be returned to the court where judgment and sentence was entered and that court is directed to impose a corrected sentence for the violation of RCW 9.54.020, Rem. Rev. Stat., § 2601-1, in accordance with RCW 9.92.010, Rem. Rev. Stat., § 2265 and the cases cited.

This, of course, in no way affects the sentence on the conviction for second-degree burglary.

NOTES

[1] Reported in 316 P. (2d) 472.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

51 Wn.2d 892 (1957) 316 P.2d 472

In the Matter of the Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus of LAWRENCE R. BRAUN, JR., Petitioner,
v.
RAY BELNAP, as Superintendent of the State Reformatory, Respondent.^[1]

No. 34350.

The Supreme Court of Washington, Department One.

October 17, 1957.

Lawrence R. Braun, Jr., pro se.

The Attorney General and Michael R. Alfieri, Assistant, for respondent.

PER CURIAM:

The petitioner was found guilty of a violation of RCW 9.54.020, Rem. Rev. Stat. § 2601-1, and on May 10, 1955, was sentenced to imprisonment for a period of not more than twenty years. (He was at the same time sentenced to not more than fifteen years on a conviction for the crime of second-degree burglary [a violation of RCW 9.19.020, Rem. Rev. Stat., § 2579], the two offenses being charged in the same information, and the sentences to run concurrently.)

The petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus is devoid of merit, his contentions being concerned with the admission of evidence, which should have been reviewed by appeal. No complaint is made concerning the excessive sentence for the violation of RCW 9.54.020, supra, but the assistant attorney general points out that the maximum for the offense charged should be ten years, RCW 9.92.010, Rem. Rev. Stat., § 2265, instead of twenty. In re Klapproth v. Squier (1957), 50 Wn. (2d) 675, 314 P. (2d) 430; In re Richey v. Squier (1957), ante p. 38, 315 P. (2d) 638.

For the reasons indicated in In re Klapproth v. Squier, supra, and in In re Richey v. Squier, supra, the petitioner is to be returned to the court where judgment and sentence was entered and that court is directed to impose a corrected sentence for the violation of RCW 9.54.020, Rem. Rev. Stat., § 2601-1, in accordance with RCW 9.92.010, Rem. Rev. Stat., § 2265 and the cases cited.

This, of course, in no way affects the sentence on the conviction for second-degree burglary.

NOTES

[1] Reported in 316 P. (2d) 472.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

316 P.2d 472, 51 Wash. 2d 892, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-matter-of-braun-v-belnap-wash-1957.

Opinion

In the Matter of the Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus of LAWRENCE R. BRAUN, JR., Petitioner, v. RAY BELNAP, as Superintendent of the State Reformatory, Respondent.[1]

NOTES

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

In the Matter of the Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus of LAWRENCE R. BRAUN, JR., Petitioner,
v.
RAY BELNAP, as Superintendent of the State Reformatory, Respondent.^[1]