State v. Barton, 40232
| Decision Date | 08 May 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 40232,40232 |
| Parties | STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Daniel A BARTON, Appellant. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Sam Peach, Bellingham, for appellant.
Stan Pitkin, Pros. Atty., William A. Gardiner, Deputy Pros. Atty., Bellingham, for respondent.
In this case, Daniel Barton defendant was convicted by a superior court jury on a charge of negligent homicide. The trial judge imposed the statutorily prescribed maximum sentence of twenty years with the period of incarceration to be fixed by the parole board under our indeterminate sentence law. Defendant Barton has appealed, asserting error as to both conviction and sentence as imposed by the trial court.
Daniel Barton closed his father's gasoline service station in Bellingham at approximately 10:00 p.m. Wednesday evening, April 6, 1966. Joined by his friend Mike Chevalier, Barton drove his modified 1957 Chevrolet sedan home, cleaned up, changed clothes, and accompanied by his friend drove downtown into Bellingham. The two decided to go to Ferndale to a dance. They arrived at approximately 11:45 p.m.--about 45 minutes before the end of the dance. Barton had a six pack of beer with 'two bottles out' in his car. He had a bottle of beer and offered one to Mike. Upon leaving the dance about five minutes to midnight, Barton commenced driving south toward Bellingham on the freeway at 70 to 75 miles per hour. En route he passed several cars, including one driven by Fred Rood travelling between 75 and 80 miles per hour. Barton then rear-ended a 1965 Triumph motorcycle. A passenger on the motorcycle was severely injured and very shortly died. Barton claimed that the motorcycle had no lights and when first seen by him, it was too late to avoid the accident. Officer Thomas of the Washington State Patrol testified that just prior to the accident he had been watching traffic on the freeway at a place north of the accident scene and, among other vehicles had seen a motorcycle heading south with both its headlight and taillight operating. After the accident, Officer Thomas drove Barton and Chevalier to the Bellingham police station where Barton was interviewed by Officer Thomas and Sergeant Dunn of the Bellingham Police Department. Officer Thomas explained to Barton his constitutional right to counsel and to refuse any and all tests, and that anything he said might be used against him in a court of law. Officer Thomas asked Barton to perform simple physical tests as to sobriety. Barton refused, stating he had drunk no intoxicants, and he would first have to talk to his father or his father's lawyer. When Barton's father arrived, the officers advised Barton and his father that the motorcycle passenger had died. The officers discussed sobriety tests and requested the father's permission to administer these. Barton told his father he had drunk nothing. The father stated 'take the test then.' The breathalyzer test was administered and Barton was taken to the hospital.
At a pretrial hearing on defense motions to suppress evidence, the trial court ruled out the breathalyzer test and statements made by Barton at the Bellingham police station. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Handley
...necessarily have discretion to impose disparate sentences upon codefendants." Handley, at 383, 773 P.2d 879 (citing State v. Barton, 75 Wash.2d 947, 950, 454 P.2d 381 (1969) (upholding the imposition of the statutory maximum sentence of 20 years when a 1-year sentence could have been impose......
-
State v. Nixon, 1961--I
...prescribed limits as to the duration of sentence or the place of incarceration is not a denial of equal protection. State v. Barton, 75 Wash.2d 947, 454 P.2d 381 (1969); State v. Pitts, 3 Wash.App. 748, 477 P.2d 642 (1970). RCW 9.92.090 defines the status of being an habitual criminal. Stat......
-
State v. Handley
...U.S. 356, 30 L.Ed. 220, 6 S.Ct. 1064 (1886) ]. The same rule is applicable in the sentencing context. The court in State v. Barton, 75 Wash.2d 947, 950, 454 P.2d 381 (1969), held that the application of a statute that grants to a trial judge discretion within prescribed limits as to the dur......
-
People v. Chambers
...In State v. Boggs, 57 Wash.2d 484, 358 P.2d 124 (1961); in State v. Saylors, 70 Wash.2d 7, 422 P.2d 477 (1966), and in State v. Barton, 75 Wash.2d 947, 454 P.2d 381 (1969) the court held there was no denial of equal protection of the In People v. Yonker, the court held that the act of the l......