State v. Davis, 34940

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Washington
Citation355 P.2d 344,56 Wn.2d 729
Decision Date15 September 1960
Docket NumberNo. 34940,34940
PartiesSTATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Richard DAVIS, Appellant.

Page 729

56 Wn.2d 729
355 P.2d 344
STATE of Washington, Respondent,
Richard DAVIS, Appellant.
No. 34940.
Supreme Court of Washington, Department 2.
Sept. 15, 1960.

Page 730

Victor Haglund, Max Kosher, Everett, for appellant.

Walter J. Deierlein, Jr., Stanley K. Bruhn, Mount Vernon, for respondent.

HILL. Judge.

This appeal highlights the distinction between a suspended sentence under RCW 9.92.060, which we will refer to as the Suspended Sentence Act, and under the provisions made in the Prison Terms, Paroles and Probation Act, which we will refer to [355 P.2d 345] herein as the Probation Act (RCW 9.95.200 through 9.95.250).

Generally speaking, our superior courts use the former when they desire to suspend the execution of a sentence during the good behavior of a convicted person, and the latter when they desire to defer the imposition of a sentence, with a view to an ultimate dismissal of the charges if the behavior of the convicted person warrants such action. However, the latter is available and is used in many instances for the suspension of the execution of a sentence.

The facts in the present case are that the appellant entered a plea of guilty to the crime of negligent homicide in the superior court of Skagit county, and was sentenced October 11, 1954, to imprisonment in the county jail for one year; the period of confinement to run from October 4, 1954. The judgment and sentence contained the further order,

'* * * That ten months of the term of imprisonment be and the same are hereby suspended upon the following terms and conditions.'

There followed five conditions, one of which was that his 'motor vehicle operator's license shall be suspended and revoked for a period of three years'; and the last of the conditions was that he should

'* * * report to the Sheriff of Skagit County once each month regarding his employment and conduct and any other matters which the Sheriff may inquire about. * * *'

October 2, 1958, the prosecuting attorney moved to revoke the suspended sentence; and, after a hearing, the trial court found that the appellant had violated the terms and conditions of the suspended sentence, and on October 27, 1958, entered an order that the portion of

Page 731

'* * * the Judgment and Sentence to the County Jail entered on the 11th day of October, 1954, which was suspended, to-wit: ten months, be, and the same is hereby, revoked, and said defendant, Richard Davis, is hereby remanded to the sheriff of Skagit County, Washington, to be detained by the said sheriff in the Skagit County jail, Skagit County, Washington, for the period of ten months (10).'

It is from this order revoking the suspended sentence that this appeal is taken.

It is not seriously contended that the conditions of the suspension were not violated; but it is urged that after one year from October 4, 1954, the sentence had terminated; that the appellant was thereafter no longer obligated to observe the conditions; and that thereafter the court had no jurisdiction to revoke the suspension.

The appellant argues that the sentence was suspended under the Probation Act, which provides that the court may suspend the imposing or the execution of the sentence and may direct that such suspension may continue for such period of time, not exceeding the maximum term of the sentence, as the court may determine. RC W 9.95.200-9.95.210.

The trial court insists that the sentence was suspended in accordance with the terms of the Suspended Sentence Act, which states that the court at the time of imposing sentence may 'direct that such sentence be stayed and suspended until otherwise ordered by such court'. RCW 9.92.060.

Our cases hold that under this statute a sentence continues suspended until the further order of the court, and that the suspension may be revoked even though the period covered by the sentence has expired. State ex rel. Pence v. Koch, 1933, 173 Wash. 420, 23 P.2d 884; State ex rel. Tingstad v. Starwich, 1922, 119 Wash. 561, 206 P. 29, 26 A.L.R. 393.

A brief summary of the history and terms of the two acts will make it clear that the trial court was proceeding under the Suspended Sentence Act, and that there is no basis for contending that the legislature even contemplated the repeal or the replacing of the Suspended Sentence Act by the Probation Act.

Page 732

[355 P.2d 346] History and Provisions of the Suspended Sentence Act, and a Consideration of Its Applicability to the Present Case:

Prior to 1921, there had been an act in 1905 (Laws of 1905, chapter 24), and a provision in the criminal code adopted in 1909 (Laws of 1909, chapter 249, § 28), for the suspension of sentence of persons under twenty-one. Our present act (RCW 9.92.060) is derived from Laws of 1921, chapter 69. That chapter contained only one section, but it may be divided into three parts designated A, B, and C.

A. It was applicable,

'Whenever any person [never before convicted of a felony or gross misdemeanor] shall be convicted of any crime except murder, burglary in the first degree, arson in the first degree, robbery, carnal knowledge of a female child under the age of ten years, or rape * * *.' (Brackets ours.)

B. The court could,

'* * * in its discretion, at the time of imposing sentence upon such person, direct that such sentence be stayed and suspended until otherwise ordered by such court, and that the sentenced person be placed under the charge of a parole or peace officer during the term of such suspension, upon such terms as the court may determine * * *.'


To continue reading

Request your trial
32 cases
  • State v. Osborn, 43887
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • 27 Mayo 1976
    ...of Social and Health Services 'or such officer as the supervisor may designate.' RCW 9.95.210; See State v. Davis, 56 Wash.2d 729, 737, 355 P.2d 344 (1960). The apparent intent of this difference is to provide for a minimal supervision with a suspended sentence. ABA Section of Judicial Adm'......
  • Com. v. Sawicki
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • 29 Diciembre 1975
    ...387, 393--396, 192 A.2d 258 (1963), rev'd on other grounds, 414 Pa. 471, 200 A.2d 773 (1964). See also State v. Davis, 56 Wash.2d 729, 355 P.2d 344 (1960). A Federal court has power to issue a warrant after the close of the probationary priod (but within a maximum period specified by statut......
  • State v. Carlyle, 3709-I
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Washington
    • 13 Marzo 1978 never imposed unless defendant violates the condition of his probation. (Emphasis added.) Further, State v. Davis, 56 Wash.2d 729, 730, 355 P.2d 344, 345 (1960), Generally speaking, our superior courts use the former ("the Suspended Sentence Act," RCW 9.92.060) when they desire to suspen......
  • State v. Tippie
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Oregon
    • 5 Marzo 1974
    ...differences between a deferred sentence (RCW 9.95.200) and a suspended sentence (RCW 9.92.060). See, State v. Davis, 56 Wash.2d 729, 355 P.2d 344 (1960). Oregon has a single statute which allows the court to 'suspend the imposition or execution of sentence.' ORS 4 But see, State v. Bouthill......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT