Moon v. Cranor

• Decision Date: 10 December 1949
• Docket Number: 31242.
• Citation: 35 Wn.2d 230,212 P.2d 775
• Parties: MOON v. CRANOR.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

212 P.2d 775

35 Wn.2d 230

MOON v. CRANOR.

No. 31242.

Supreme Court of Washington

December 10, 1949

Department 2

Leo Moon filed an original petition against John R. Cranor, as Warden of the Washington State Penitentiary at Walla Walla Washington, for a writ of habeas corpus to obtain his release from custody.

The Supreme Court, Mallery, J., denied the petition on ground that information to which petitioner had entered a plea of guilty charged the crime of grand larceny and not offense of entering a check knowing he had insufficient funds and that petitioner was sentenced for offense charged.

Smith Troy, John D. Blankinship, Olympia, for respondent.

MALLERY Justice.

This case comes to us as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus by an inmate of the state penitentiary.

December 13, 1948 petitioner was charged in Walla Walla county with grand larceny by check. Under the heading 'Statement of the case' petitioner concisely sets out his version of the facts:

'Petitioner realizing the said charge was a misdemeanor, refused the court's offer to appoint counsel and placed himself at the mercy of the court by pleading guilty, hoping some mitigation of the sentence would be forthcoming from his pleading guilty.

'The Court read the charge to defendant as Grand Larceny by Check and defendant pleaded guilty and was then and there sentenced to the Washington State Penitentiary, arriving there the same day as sentenced, December 18, 1948. On receiving his copy of the Judgment and Sentence, petitioner found the charge had been changed to read plain GRAND LARCENY, a crime carrying a much stiffer penalty than the one he had been convicted of committing.'

When it is alleged that a defendant has been charged with one crime and sentenced for another we examine the information notwithstanding the regularity of the judgment and sentence on its face. In re Sorenson v. Smith, Wash., 209 P.2d 479. We do this only to ascertain what crime is charged, not to question its sufficiency. As was said in Re Boggie, 24 Wash.2d 102, 163 P.2d 575, 577: 'The sufficiency of the information may not be challenged by habeas corpus.'

We set out the charging part of the information which reads as follows: 'That the said Leo H. Moon in the county of Walla Walla, State of Washington, on or about the 8th day of December 1948, being then and there did wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously obtain from the New York Store merchandise in the sum of $34.00 in lawful money of the United States, the property of the New York Store, with intent to deprive the owner thereof, and he, the said Leo H. Moon then and there knowing that the drawer of said check was not authorized or entitled to draw the same, * * *.'

The petitioner contends that the information was brought under Rem.Rev.Stat.

§ 2601-2 [P.P.C § 116-41] because in the language of the information he was charged with 'Grand larceny by check'. This he contends charges him with uttering a check knowing he had...