State v. Saliva

Washington Supreme Court

State v. Saliva

475 P.2d 884, 78 Wash. 2d 489, 1970 Wash. LEXIS 320

CourtWashington Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 26, 1970

DocketNo. 40922

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 475 P.2d 884 (State v. Saliva) 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 v. Saliva, 475 P.2d 884, 78 Wash. 2d 489, 1970 Wash. LEXIS 320 (Wash. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Appellant pleaded guilty to the possession of cannabis sativa or marijuana. Based on the plea, the judgment from which this appeal is taken was entered on February 14, 1969, for unlawful possession of narcotics as set forth in RCW 69.33.410 (the Uniform Narcotic Drug Act). In State v. Zornes, 78 Wn.2d 9, 475 P.2d 109 (1970) we held that the narcotic drug act (RCW 69.33) becomes inapplicable to a criminal offense involving marijuana, whether the proceeding be at the prosecution stage or [490]*490pending appeal, as of the effective date of Laws of 1969, Ex. Ses., ch. 256, § 7(13) which removed marijuana from the scope of that act. Since the appeal is now pending, judgment must be reversed and the action dismissed. It is so ordered.

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

Per Curiam.

Appellant pleaded guilty to the possession of cannabis sativa or marijuana. Based on the plea, the judgment from which this appeal is taken was entered on February 14, 1969, for unlawful possession of narcotics as set forth in RCW 69.33.410 (the Uniform Narcotic Drug Act). In State v. Zornes, 78 Wn.2d 9, 475 P.2d 109 (1970) we held that the narcotic drug act (RCW 69.33) becomes inapplicable to a criminal offense involving marijuana, whether the proceeding be at the prosecution stage or [490]*490pending appeal, as of the effective date of Laws of 1969, Ex. Ses., ch. 256, § 7(13) which removed marijuana from the scope of that act. Since the appeal is now pending, judgment must be reversed and the action dismissed. It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

475 P.2d 884, 78 Wash. 2d 489, 1970 Wash. LEXIS 320, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-saliva-wash-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack