State v. Fitzsimmons
| Decision Date | 18 December 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 46366,46366 |
| Citation | 620 P.2d 999,94 Wn.2d 858 |
| Parties | STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Edwin FITZSIMMONS, Petitioner. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
William Johnston, Bellingham, for petitioner.
David S. McEachran, Whatcom County Prosecutor, Randall W. Watts, Deputy Pros. Atty., Bellingham, for respondent.
The United States Supreme Court, by a 5-to-4 vote, has granted a writ of certiorari in this case and vacated our judgment, found at 93 Wash.2d 436, 610 P.2d 893 (1980). We now respond to the Supreme Court's remand in its order requiring this court to consider whether Fitzsimmons "is based upon federal or state constitutional grounds, or both."
A review of the language of this court's opinion in Fitzsimmons affirms the decision's primary independent reliance on state court rule JCrR 2.11. State v. Fitzsimmons, supra at 441, 449, 610 P.2d 893. The court rules are promulgated as a matter of state law pursuant to statute, RCW 2.04.190, see generally RCW 2.04, and as part of the State Supreme Court's inherent rule making powers as "an integral part of the judicial process." State v. Smith, 84 Wash.2d 498, 502, 527 P.2d 674 (1974). The constitutional analysis was undertaken after the holding that Mr. Fitzsimmons'
rights under these rules were violated when he was denied the information and means necessary to allow him to contact appointed counsel.
(Italics ours.) State v. Fitzsimmons, supra, 93 Wash.2d at 441, 610 P.2d 893. This discussion of constitutional law merely helps demonstrate the application and effect of the court rules that provide the rationale for the ruling. Constitutional analysis in the Fitzsimmons opinion is "persuasive" in character, see Minnesota v. National Tea Co., 309 U.S. 551, 556, 60 S.Ct. 676, 679, 84 L.Ed. 920 (1940). However, JCrR 2.11 provides an independent and adequate state ground for our decision. See Fox Film Corp. v. Muller, 296 U.S. 207, 210, 56 S.Ct. 183, 184, 80 L.Ed. 158 (1935).
With regard to the support to Fitzsimmons' exploration of constitutional provisions, we relied on Tacoma v. Heater, 67 Wash.2d 733, 409 P.2d 867 (1966). Heater itself cites both federal and state constitutional provisions for its holding, which predated JCrR 2.11. Thus, the precedent for any constitutional holding, which is in any event only supportive of the analysis of court rule provisions, is grounded in state as well as federal constitutional principles. Reliance on federal precedent and federal constitutional provisions...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Templeton
...893, vacated and remanded, 449 U.S. 977, 101 S.Ct. 390, 66 L.Ed.2d 240 (1980), (Fitzsimmons I), affirmed on remand, 94 Wash.2d 858, 620 P.2d 999 (1980) (Fitzsimmons II); Juckett, 100 Wash.2d at 828, 675 P.2d 599 (ruling that the right to counsel under former JCrR 2.11 [superseded in differe......
-
State v. Bristor
...Code, Vol. 0 § JCrR 2.11 (1983); State v. Fitzsimmons, 93 Wash.2d 436, 441, 449, 610 P.2d 893 (1980); State v. Fitzsimmons, 94 Wash.2d 858, 620 P.2d 999 (1980); Tacoma v. Myhre, 32 Wash.App. 661, 664, 648 P.2d 912 (1982) (criminal prosecutions for From New York, there is the decision of tha......
-
City of Spokane v. Kruger
...436, 610 P.2d 893, 18 A.L.R.4th 690, vacated and remanded, 449 U.S. 977, 101 S.Ct. 390, 66 L.Ed.2d 240, aff'd on remand, 94 Wash.2d 858, 620 P.2d 999 (1980), upheld the dismissal in an unpublished decision. This court accepted JCrR 2.11(b)(1) establishes the parameters of the right to couns......
-
Commonwealth v. Neary-French
...405 N.W.2d 285, 287 (N.D.1987) ; Lakewood v. Waselenchuk, 94 Ohio App.3d 684, 688, 641 N.E.2d 767 (1994) ; State v. Fitzsimmons, 94 Wash.2d 858, 858, 620 P.2d 999 (1980). No such statutory right exists in the Commonwealth.The defendant also argues that a critical stage occurs when a defenda......