Grieve v. Smith
| Decision Date | 03 October 1946 |
| Docket Number | 30047. |
| Citation | 26 Wn.2d 156,173 P.2d 168 |
| Parties | GRIEVE v. SMITH, Superintendent of State Penitentiary. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Department 2
Original proceeding in the matter of the application for writ of habeas corpus by Richard Grieve to secure his release from the custody of Tom Smith, Superintendent of the Washington State Penitentiary. On respondent's demurrer to be petitioned.
Demurrer sustained.
Richard Grieve, of Walla Walla, per se.
Smith Troy and George H. Holt, both of Olympia, for respondent.
Disposition of Richard Grieve's first petition in this court for a writ of habeas corpus (In re Grieve) is to be found in 22 Wash.2d 902, 158 P.2d 73. This is the second such petition upon receipt of which the Chief Justice directed to the Superintendent of the Washington State Penitentiary, and returnable Before this court, an order to show cause why such writ should not issue. Return was made by way of demurrer that the petition, which we set forth below, did not on its face state any grounds to cause the writ to issue.
The petition of Richard Grieve respectfully shows:
Petitioner's first contention is that the judgment is void for the reason that under the laws of this state the sentences cannot be made to run consecutively.
The pertinent part of the judgment and sentence incorporated by reference in the petition reads as follows:
Under Rem.Rev.Stat. § 2285, when a person has been convicted of two or more offenses Before sentence has been pronounced for either the imprisonment to which he is sentenced upon the second conviction shall commence upon the termination of the first or other term. It is provided, however, that whenever a person is convicted of two or more offenses set forth in separate counts in one information the court may provide that the sentences shall run concurrently. It would appear that under this section the Legislature has intended that as a general rule when a person is convicted of more than one offense the sentences shall run consecutively. In re Sanford, 10 Wash.2d 686, 118 P.2d 179. The only exception to this rule is that the legislature has authorized the court to provide for the sentences to run concurrently when the defendant has been convicted of two offenses joined...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Warden, Nevada State Prison v. Peters
...In such a situation NRS 176.150 allows the court discretion to make the sentence concurrent or consecutive. 2 See also Grieve v. Smith, 26 Wash.2d 156, 173 P.2d 168 (1946); Sherman v. United States, 241 F.2d 329 (9th Cir. 1957); Castano v. United States, 313 F.2d 857 (7th Cir. 1963); McKee ......
-
State v. Brown, 3439--I
...unless the trial court exercises its discretion by ordering the terms to run concurrently. RCW 9.92.080(3); Grieve v. Smith, 26 Wash.2d 156, 158, 173 P.2d 168 (1946). The trial court's imposition of the sentences and its refusal to order those sentences to run concurrently were discretionar......
-
Ex parte Higdon
...157, 162, 116 P.2d 300; In re Horner, 19 Wash.2d 51, 54, 141 P.2d 151; In re Grieve, 22 Wash.2d 902, 908, 158 P.2d 73; Grieve v. Smith, 26 Wash.2d 156, 160, 173 P.2d 168; Bass v. Smith, 26 Wash.2d 872, 876, 176 P.2d Appellant further contends that appellant's return to the writ of habeas co......
-
Wyback v. Board of Prison Terms and Paroles
...in the penitentiary and encourage his reformation. State ex rel. Linden v. Bunge, 1937, 192 Wash. 245 at 247, 73 P.2d 516; In re Grieve v. Smith, supra; in re Pierce v. supra. To this end it is required to make investigations along lines formulated by itself. See Rem.Rev.Stat. (Supp.)§ 1024......