State ex rel. Sharf v. Municipal Court of Seattle

• Decision Date: 11 August 1960
• Docket Number: No. 35463,35463
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE of Washington, on the Relation of John F. SHARF, Appellant, v. MUNICIPAL COURT OF SEATTLE, King County, Washington, William H. Simmons, Judge, Respondent.

Page 589

56 Wn.2d 589

354 P.2d 692

STATE of Washington, on the Relation of John F. SHARF, Appellant, v. MUNICIPAL COURT OF SEATTLE, King County, Washington, William H. Simmons, Judge, Respondent.

No. 35463.

Supreme Court of Washington, Department 2.

Aug. 11, 1960.

Heckendorn & McNair, Seattle, for appellant.

No appearance was made by the respondent.

ROSELLINI, Judge.

The relator was convicted of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor and of negligent driving by the respondent Judge on October 26, 1959. He was sentenced to pay fines of $200 and $50, respectively, on the two convictions, and his driver's license was suspended for one year. Immediately thereafter he was remanded to the custody of the sheriff until he fulfilled the sentence of the court. He paid the fines; and his driver's license having been previously surrendered to the director of licenses, he was released.

On November 14, 1959, while working at his job in Pasco, relator was arrested by two officers of the Seattle police department under a warrant issued by the respondent ordering his arrest for 're-sentencing of case heard 26 October 1959.'

The officers returned the relator to Seattle and confined him in the city jail until two days later when the posted bond for $800, at a cost to him of $75. There were and are no charges pending against relator and no complaint was filed other than the one under which relator had already been convicted and sentenced. The respondent having indicated that the imposed sentence would be increased that the relator applied to the superior court for a writ of prohibition, which, on hearing, was denied, and this appeal followed.

The respondent has not appeared in this court and no brief has been filed in its behalf. There is no showing in the record that the sentence originally imposed on the relator was illegal.

We think the law is clear that the municipal court lost jurisdiction when the relator fulfilled the sentence imposed and thereafter it was devoid of power to impose a greater sentence. In the leading case of Ex parte Lange, 18 Wall. 163-205, 85 U.S. 163-205, 21 L.Ed. 872, it was held that, when a court has imposed fine and imprisonment (where the statute has only conferred power to punish by fine or imprisonment) and the fine has been paid, it cannot, even during the same term, modify the judgment by imposing imprisonment instead of the former sentence. Upon his subject the supreme court said:

'If there is anything settled in the jurisprudence of England and America, it is that no man can be twice lawfully punished for the same offense. And though there have been nice questions in the application of this rule to cases in which the act charged was such as to come within the definition of more than one statutory offense, or to bring the party within the jurisdiction of more than one court, there has never been any doubt of its entire and complete protection of the party when a second punishment is proposed in the same court, on the same facts, for the same statutory offense.'

This doctrine was recognized by this court in In re Cavitt, 170 Wash. 84, 15 P.2d 276; and State ex rel. Plumb v Superior Court, 24 Wash.2d 510, 166 P.2d 188. This rule is stated in 15 Am.Jur. 130, § 474, which lists as authorities the cases of Rupert v. State, 9 Okl.Cr. 226, 131 P. 713, 45 L.R.A.,N.S., 60; and State v. Addy, 43 N.J.L. 113, 39 Am.Rep. 547. In the latter case, the court cited State v. Gray, 8 Vroom. 368, 37 N.J.Law 368, in which Justice Van Syckel, speaking of an erroneous criminal sentence, said:

'* * * 'the court which rendered the judgment cannot vacate it or render a new judgment after the term at which it was pronounced is ended or the judgment is executed and the punishment partly borne."

The court continued:

'The citizen cannot be so put twice in jeopardy. By submitting to the demands of the court he pays the penalty of his offence once for all, and the power of the state to punish him therefor is exhausted.'

In a per curiam decision, this court held in In re McNutt v. Delmore, 47 Wash.2d 563, 288 P.2d 848, 850 (certiorari denied 350 U.S. 1002, 76 S.Ct. 550, 100 L.Ed. 866,) that a superior court has power, on its own motion, to correct an erroneous sentence 'when the error is discovered.' In that case, the court had imposed a maximum sentence of 'not less than ten years.' The applicable statute required a sentence of not less than twenty years. The original sentence did not set a true maximum; under it, the defendant could have been confined for life. It is...