State v. Braithwaite, 45583
| Decision Date | 04 October 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 45583,45583 |
| Citation | 600 P.2d 1260,92 Wn.2d 624 |
| Parties | The STATE of Washington, Petitioner, v. Roger Leask BRAITHWAITE, Respondent. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
John G. Ziegler, Seattle King County, Public Defender Assoc., Seattle, for petitioner.
Norm K. Maleng, Pros. Atty., J. Robin Hunt, Deputy Pros. Atty., Seattle, for respondent.
We have before us two questions. The first is: Where the State has appealed a superior court finding that the defendant did not have the status of an habitual criminal under RCW 9.92.090, and that finding has been reversed by a court of appeals, is a remand forbidden under the double jeopardy provisions of the state and federal constitutions (Const. art. 1, § 9; U.S.Const. amend. 5)?
Those constitutional provisions protect an individual against repeated trials for the same "offense." A determination that one is an habitual criminal does not involve a finding that he is guilty of an offense but only a finding that he has previously been convicted of certain offenses. That finding is usually, if not invariably, based upon judicial records and establishes a status, not an offense. State v. Persinger, 62 Wash.2d 362, 382 P.2d 497 (1963), Appeal dismissed 376 U.S. 187, 84 S.Ct. 638, 11 L.Ed.2d 603 (1964). We have held that one charged with being an habitual criminal is not thereby charged with a substantive crime but merely with having a Status, which, if proven, calls for increased punishment for the latest crime of which the accused has been convicted. In re Towne, 14 Wash.2d 633, 129 P.2d 230 (1942). We said in that case that the habitual criminal charge is related to the conviction for a prior substantive crime to the extent that the sentence for that crime is mandatorily made more severe, and that a judgment of conviction Of the crime of being an habitual criminal, and a sentence based on such judgment, are void. It is therefore apparent that this is not the kind of proceeding affected by double jeopardy provisions. We so held in State v. Gilcrist, 91 Wash.2d 603, 590 P.2d 809 (1979), where we said that habitual criminal proceedings do not place a defendant in jeopardy.
Furthermore, the facts with respect to the prior convictions were a matter of record and were not in dispute. The Superior Court, relying on State v. Mitchell, 2 Wash.App. 943, 472 P.2d 629 (1970), and State v. Ashker, 11 Wash.App. 423, 523 P.2d 949 (1974), held that one of the prior convictions could not be considered because the punishment was suspended by the court. This was a conclusion of law, which was reversed by the Court of Appeals, Division One (State v. Braithwaite, 18 Wash.App. 767, 572 P.2d 725 (1977)). The case was remanded for "reinstatement of the habitual criminal proceedings."
The second question before us concerns the correctness of the Court of Appeals' decision that a suspended sentence which has not been revoked should be considered a conviction for purposes of the habitual criminal statute.
The record shows that in 1961 Braithwaite was convicted of the crimes of second-degree burglary and first-degree forgery, both felonies. A prison sentence was imposed, but execution thereof was suspended upon certain terms and conditions. In 1970 Braithwaite was convicted of two counts of robbery, a felony, and given a sentence which was not suspended. In 1976 he was convicted of another felony and was charged by supplemental information with being an habitual criminal.
RCW 9.92.090 provides that every person convicted in this state of any crime set forth therein, who shall previously have been convicted of a felony, or twice convicted of certain crimes, shall be adjudged to be an habitual criminal.
The question is: Where a sentence has been suspended, has the defendant been "convicted" of a crime within the meaning of RCW 9.92.090?
The statute authorizing suspended sentences, RCW 9.92.060, reads in part:
Whenever any person shall be convicted of any crime (exceptions omitted), the court may in its discretion, at the time of imposing sentence upon such person, direct that such sentence be stayed and suspended . . .
RCW 9.92.062 provides for the setting of a termination date for the suspended sentence, which date shall be no later than the time the original sentence would have elapsed. RCW 9.92.066 provides:
Upon termination of any suspended sentence under RCW 9.92.060 or 9.95.210, such person may apply to the court for restoration of his civil rights. Thereupon the court may in its discretion enter an order directing that such defendant shall thereafter be released from all penalties and disabilities resulting from the offense or crime of which he has been convicted.
These statutes, then, provide for the suspending of a sentence when an accused has been convicted. They provide for the restoration of civil rights, upon application being made to the court, and thereafter for release from penalties and disabilities resulting from the conviction. But they do not provide for vacation of the conviction.
RCW 9.95.200 gives the court power to grant probation after conviction by plea or verdict of guilty of any crime. RCW 9.95.210 authorizes the court to suspend the imposition or execution of sentence at the time it grants probation, and to impose conditions on the probation. RCW 9.95.220 provides that the court may revoke probation if there is a violation, and may revoke the suspension of judgment if judgment has previously been pronounced. If it has not, the statute authorizes the pronouncement of judgment and the imposition and execution of sentence.
In RCW 9.95.240, dismissal of the information or indictment is authorized, in the discretion of the court, upon proper application made by a defendant who has fulfilled the conditions of his probation, and for his release from all penalties and disabilities resulting from the offense or crime of which he was convicted. A proviso states:
That in any subsequent prosecution, for any other offense, such prior conviction may be pleaded and proved, and shall have the same effect as if probation had not been granted, or the information or indictment dismissed.
It will be seen that these statutes all speak in terms of actions to be taken After conviction, and where it is provided that an indictment or information may be dismissed, the effect of the conviction is preserved as to any subsequent prosecution for any other offense. When it is observed that the habitual criminal statute makes prior convictions the basis for the determination of this status, it is obvious that the legislature did not intend that a defendant who has escaped punishment for an offense of which he has been convicted should also escape the impact of that conviction when he is brought before the court upon a charge of being an habitual criminal. Such a proceeding occurs in a "subsequent prosecution . . . for (another) offense" and falls within the words of the proviso to RCW 9.95.240.
It is true that some courts have construed habitual criminal statutes to require proof of punishment as well as conviction. See Annot., 5 A.L.R.2d 1080 (1949), What constitutes former "conviction" within statute enhancing penalty for second or subsequent offense. In this state, two decisions in the Court of Appeals, Division Two, State v. Mitchell, supra, and State v. Ashker, supra, have approved the rule adopted by those courts which hold that the word "conviction", as used in habitual criminal statutes, means "conviction and punishment."
We note that in neither...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. M.Y.G.
...may well be vacated and dismissed in its entirety, is not a determinative verdict or decision of a court. See State v. Braithwaite , 92 Wash.2d 624, 630, 600 P.2d 1260 (1979), overruled on other grounds by State v. Hennings , 100 Wash.2d 379, 670 P.2d 256 (1983) (court should be "mindful of......
-
State v. Conaway
...State v. Thorne , 129 Wash.2d 736, 772, 921 P.2d 514 (1996) ).¶ 31 This point is reinforced by our decision in State v. Braithwaite , 92 Wash.2d 624, 630, 600 P.2d 1260 (1979), overruled on other grounds by State v. Hennings , 100 Wash.2d 379, 670 P.2d 256 (1983). In that case, this court c......
-
State v. LeFever
...being a habitual criminal was not charged with an offense, therefore, the double jeopardy clause did not apply. State v. Braithwaite, 92 Wash.2d 624, 600 P.2d 1260 (1979) overruled in Hennings. 8 In Braithwaite, this court in a unanimous decision held: Those constitutional provisions protec......
-
Whack v. State
...view. E.g., State v. Lewis, 564 So.2d 765 (La.Ct.App.1990); State v. Biegenwald, 96 N.J. 630, 477 A.2d 318 (1984); State v. Braithwaite, 92 Wash.2d 624, 600 P.2d 1260 (1979). See generally 39 Am.Jur.2d Habitual Criminals and Subsequent Offenders § 8 nn. 1-2 (1968) (citing cases that require......