State Ex Rel. Fisher v. Bowman

Washington Supreme Court

State Ex Rel. Fisher v. Bowman

358 P.2d 316, 57 Wash. 2d 535, 1961 Wash. LEXIS 394

CourtWashington Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 12, 1961

Docket35247

StatusPublished

Cited by18 cases

This text of 358 P.2d 316 (State Ex Rel. Fisher v. Bowman) 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

State Ex Rel. Fisher v. Bowman, 358 P.2d 316, 57 Wash. 2d 535, 1961 Wash. LEXIS 394 (Wash. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

Rosellini, J.

— The appellant pleaded guilty, in justice court, to charges of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, reckless driving, driving without an. operator’s license, and resisting arrest. No appeal was taken from the judgment and sentence entered on that plea, but the appellant thereafter sought a writ of prohibition in the superior court. When it was pointed out by the prosecutor that a writ of prohibition will not issue to restrain the action of a court where its judgment or order was entered prior to receiving notice of the writ, the court treated the petition as one asking for a writ of certiorari and issued the writ.

A hearing was held, at the conclusion of which, the court entered an order quashing the writ and dismissing the proceeding. The record before us does not reveal the ground upon which this order was entered.

Error is assigned to the quashing of the writ, the appellant contending that the justice court lacked jurisdiction because her crime was not committed within the Burton precinct (citing RCW 3.20.120) and that she had no remedy *536 to test this question by appeal. The theory on which the latter contention is based is that, by pleading guilty, she waived her right to appeal. No authority is cited to this effect, and we do not find it to be the law.

On the contrary, the rule is that a plea of guilty does not preclude an appeal where collateral questions, such as the validity of the statute, the sufficiency of the information, the jurisdiction of the court, or the circumstances under which the plea was made, are raised. State v. Rose, 42 Wn. (2d) 509, 256 P. (2d) 493, and cases cited therein. No reason appears why the question now raised by the appellant could not be adequately disposed of on appeal. The writ was therefore properly quashed.

The judgment is affirmed.

Weaver, C. J., Hill, Finley, and Foster, JJ., concur.

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

Rosellini, J.

— The appellant pleaded guilty, in justice court, to charges of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, reckless driving, driving without an. operator’s license, and resisting arrest. No appeal was taken from the judgment and sentence entered on that plea, but the appellant thereafter sought a writ of prohibition in the superior court. When it was pointed out by the prosecutor that a writ of prohibition will not issue to restrain the action of a court where its judgment or order was entered prior to receiving notice of the writ, the court treated the petition as one asking for a writ of certiorari and issued the writ.

A hearing was held, at the conclusion of which, the court entered an order quashing the writ and dismissing the proceeding. The record before us does not reveal the ground upon which this order was entered.

Error is assigned to the quashing of the writ, the appellant contending that the justice court lacked jurisdiction because her crime was not committed within the Burton precinct (citing RCW 3.20.120) and that she had no remedy *536 to test this question by appeal. The theory on which the latter contention is based is that, by pleading guilty, she waived her right to appeal. No authority is cited to this effect, and we do not find it to be the law.

On the contrary, the rule is that a plea of guilty does not preclude an appeal where collateral questions, such as the validity of the statute, the sufficiency of the information, the jurisdiction of the court, or the circumstances under which the plea was made, are raised. State v. Rose, 42 Wn. (2d) 509, 256 P. (2d) 493, and cases cited therein. No reason appears why the question now raised by the appellant could not be adequately disposed of on appeal. The writ was therefore properly quashed.

The judgment is affirmed.

Weaver, C. J., Hill, Finley, and Foster, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

358 P.2d 316, 57 Wash. 2d 535, 1961 Wash. LEXIS 394, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-fisher-v-bowman-wash-1961.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack