In RE SIIPOLA v. Cranor

Washington Supreme Court

In RE SIIPOLA v. Cranor

232 P.2d 920, 38 Wash. 2d 848, 1951 Wash. LEXIS 494

CourtWashington Supreme Court

DecidedJune 28, 1951

Docket31799

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 232 P.2d 920 (In RE SIIPOLA v. Cranor) 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 RE SIIPOLA v. Cranor, 232 P.2d 920, 38 Wash. 2d 848, 1951 Wash. LEXIS 494 (Wash. 1951).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam

Petitioner has filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus alleging that he is being unlawfully detained of his liberty by the respondent, superintendent of the state penitentiary, under a void judgment and sentence. Respondent has interposed a demurrer to the application.

September 24, 1948, petitioner pleaded guilty to an information filed against him in Clallam county criminal cause No. 1602, charging him with the crime of grand larceny, as defined by Rem. Rev. Stat., § 2601 [P.P.C. § 117-47]. September 27, 1948, he was adjudged guilty of that crime and sentenced to the penitentiary at Walla Walla, “for a period not to exceed ten years.”

We find merit in only one of petitioner’s contentions, i. e., that the trial court should have sentenced him to a maximum of not more than fifteen years, rather than a maximum of not more than ten years. But this error does *849 not, as petitioner contends, render the judgment void. Rem. Supp. 1947, § 10249-2, provides that the trial court shall impose the maximum sentence provided by law for the crime for which a defendant is convicted. The maximum penalty provided for grand larceny by Rem. Rev. Stat., § 2605 [P.P.C. § 117-55], is fifteen years’ confinement in the state penitentiary. But, in In re Bass v. Smith, 26 Wn. (2d) 872, 176 P. (2d) 355, where a sentence less than the maximum sentence was imposed, disregarding Rem. Supp. 1947, § 10249-2, we held: '

“While the judgment was deficient, it was not absolutely unauthorized, or of an entirely different character from that authorized by law. The judgment was erroneous, in that it did not impose a sentence of not less than twenty years, as provided by Rem. Rev. Stat. (Sup.), § 10249-2, but it was not absolutely void.”

That case is determinative of petitioner’s contention here; although the sentence was deficient, the judgment is not void.

It is therefore the order of this court that the demurrer to the petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus be sustained and the application dismissed. It is further ordered that petitioner, Neis Siipola, be returned to the superior court for Clallam county for the purpose of re-sentencing in accordance with Rem. Supp. 1947, § 10249-2.

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

Per Curiam

Petitioner has filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus alleging that he is being unlawfully detained of his liberty by the respondent, superintendent of the state penitentiary, under a void judgment and sentence. Respondent has interposed a demurrer to the application.

September 24, 1948, petitioner pleaded guilty to an information filed against him in Clallam county criminal cause No. 1602, charging him with the crime of grand larceny, as defined by Rem. Rev. Stat., § 2601 [P.P.C. § 117-47]. September 27, 1948, he was adjudged guilty of that crime and sentenced to the penitentiary at Walla Walla, “for a period not to exceed ten years.”

We find merit in only one of petitioner’s contentions, i. e., that the trial court should have sentenced him to a maximum of not more than fifteen years, rather than a maximum of not more than ten years. But this error does *849 not, as petitioner contends, render the judgment void. Rem. Supp. 1947, § 10249-2, provides that the trial court shall impose the maximum sentence provided by law for the crime for which a defendant is convicted. The maximum penalty provided for grand larceny by Rem. Rev. Stat., § 2605 [P.P.C. § 117-55], is fifteen years’ confinement in the state penitentiary. But, in In re Bass v. Smith, 26 Wn. (2d) 872, 176 P. (2d) 355, where a sentence less than the maximum sentence was imposed, disregarding Rem. Supp. 1947, § 10249-2, we held: '

“While the judgment was deficient, it was not absolutely unauthorized, or of an entirely different character from that authorized by law. The judgment was erroneous, in that it did not impose a sentence of not less than twenty years, as provided by Rem. Rev. Stat. (Sup.), § 10249-2, but it was not absolutely void.”

That case is determinative of petitioner’s contention here; although the sentence was deficient, the judgment is not void.

It is therefore the order of this court that the demurrer to the petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus be sustained and the application dismissed. It is further ordered that petitioner, Neis Siipola, be returned to the superior court for Clallam county for the purpose of re-sentencing in accordance with Rem. Supp. 1947, § 10249-2.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

232 P.2d 920, 38 Wash. 2d 848, 1951 Wash. LEXIS 494, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-siipola-v-cranor-wash-1951.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack