State v. Schluter

186 P. 267, 109 Wash. 78, 1919 Wash. LEXIS 954
CourtWashington Supreme Court
DecidedDecember 16, 1919
DocketNo. 15382
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 186 P. 267 (State v. Schluter) 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. Schluter, 186 P. 267, 109 Wash. 78, 1919 Wash. LEXIS 954 (Wash. 1919).

Opinion

Mitchell, J.

Appellant plead guilty to a charge, by an information filed in the superior court, of having in his possession an excessive amount of intoxicating liquor, in violation of §-6262-22, Rem. Code, was fined $250 and sentenced to ninety days in the county jail, and has appealed.

His only complaint is the severity of the judgment entered. The penalty provided by the law for the crime- in question is:

“A fine of not less than fifty dollars nor more than two hundred fifty dollars, or by imprisonment in the county jail for not less than ten days nor more than [79]*79three months, or by both such fine and imprisonment. ’ ’ Rem. Code, § 6262-31.

If a consideration of what this court has said in the cases of State v. Bliss, 27 Wash. 463, 68 Pac. 87; State v. Newton, 29 Wash. 373, 70 Pac. 31; State v. Van Waters, 36 Wash. 358, 78 Pac. 897; State v. Patchen, 37 Wash. 24, 79 Pac. 479; State v. Kenney, 83 Wash. 441, 145 Pac. 450, as to the power of this court to modify such a sentence and judgment because of its supposed severity, is not conclusive against the present appeal, assuredly we must decline to review it because of the absence of any record other than the information, plea of guilty, and the judgment. The law charges upon the trial judge the duty to determine the punishment to be imposed, not according to an arbitrary penalty fixed by the law, but according to a minimum and maximum pecuniary punishment or imprisonment, or both, requiring the exercise of discretion, the expression of which,, if within the terms of the law, is impressed with all legal presumptions in its favor, and is not to be disturbed by a challenge based simply upon the contention of the guilty one that the punishment imposed is in excess of what he thinks it should be.

Judgment affirmed.

Holcomr, C. J., Mackintosh, Parker, and Main, JJ., concur.

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

Related

State v. Williams
190 P.2d 734 (Washington Supreme Court, 1948)
In Re Clark
163 P.2d 577 (Washington Supreme Court, 1945)
State v. Shimoaka
251 P. 290 (Washington Supreme Court, 1926)
State v. Miles
209 P. 518 (Washington Supreme Court, 1922)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
186 P. 267, 109 Wash. 78, 1919 Wash. LEXIS 954, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-schluter-wash-1919.