State v. Monday, No. 43636
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Washington |
| Writing for the Court | FINLEY; STAFFORD |
| Citation | 85 Wn.2d 906,540 P.2d 416 |
| Parties | STATE of Washington, Petitioner, v. Ernest Wayne MONDAY, Respondent. |
| Decision Date | 02 October 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 43636 |
Page 906
v.
Ernest Wayne MONDAY, Respondent.
Curtis M. Janhunen, Pros. Atty., David Foscue, Chief Deputy Pros. Atty., Grays Harbor County, Montesano, for petitioner.
John M. Wolfe, Aberdeen, for respondent.
FINLEY, Associate Justice.
This appeal arises from an order of the superior court which: (1) revoked defendant's probation and suspended sentence; and (2) imposed the original jail sentence prescribed for defendant's conviction of negligent homicide. The Court of Appeals reversed the superior court on the grounds that after the original term of sentence prescribed for a convicted defendant has elapsed, a superior court loses jurisdiction to thereafter revoke the suspended sentence and impose the original sentence. We affirm the Court of Appeals.
The facts and undisputed and, insofar as pertinent, they are as follows: In September, 1971, defendant Monday was sentenced to One year in jail for negligent homicide. However, the execution of the sentence was suspended for Two years on the condition that defendant serve eight months in jail and
Page 907
comply with various probation conditions. Defendant served his eight months in jail. Thereafter, in June, 1973, the suspended sentence was revoked for violation of the conditions of probation, and defendant Monday was ordered to serve the one year jail term without credit for the eight months jail time previously served.There are essentially two statutory schemes under which a trial court may prescribe a suspended sentence for a defendant convicted of the commission of a crime: (1) RCW 9.92.060--.064, which has been termed the Suspended Sentence Act; and (2) RCW 9.95.210, which has been termed the Probation Act. See State v. Davis, 56 Wash.2d 729, 355 P.2d 344 (1960). The Court of Appeals correctly [540 P.2d 417] determined that the superior court was operating under RCW 9.95.210 (the Probation Act) when it sentenced defendant Monday. Thus, the sole question for our determination is whether a sentence may be suspended and a defendant placed on probation under RCW 9.95.210 for a period of time longer than the length of sentence Actually imposed?
RCW 9.95.210 provides in pertinent part:
The court in granting probation, 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 sentence, except as hereinafter set forth and upon such terms and conditions as it shall determine.
(Italics ours.)
The difficulty in the instant case stems from the fact that the crime for which defendant was convicted--negligent homicide--is punishable by ten years imprisonment in a state penitentiary, or one year imprisonment in the county jail, or a fine of $1,000 or by both a fine and imprisonment. See RCW 46.61.520(2). Thus, the above-italicized portion of RCW 9.95.210 could be construed (a) to allow suspension of sentence and imposition of probation for the maximum term that it would be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hughes, No. 74147-6
...of the legislature and not of the judiciary to alter the sentencing process.'" Id. (quoting State v. Monday, 85 Wash.2d 906, 909-10, 540 P.2d 416 (1975) (emphasis ¶ 58 Selvidge argues that the court is simply without authority to establish a constitutional procedure for issuing exceptional ......
-
State v. Bassett, No. 94556-0
...of the legislature and not of the judiciary to alter the sentencing process.’ " Id. (quoting State v. Monday, 85 Wash.2d 906, 909-10, 540 P.2d 416 (1975) ).5 In his cross petition for review by this court, Bassett challenged the sentencing judge’s exercise of discretion. See Cross-Pet. for ......
-
State v. Pillatos, No. 75984-7.
...alter the sentencing process."'" Id. (quoting Ammons, 105 Wash.2d at 180, 718 P.2d 796) (quoting State v. Monday, 85 Wash.2d 906, 909-10, 540 P.2d 416 (1975)). We went on to This court will not create a procedure to empanel juries on remand to find aggravating factors because the legislatur......
-
State v. Manussier, No. 61906-9
...1254 amended by 905 P.2d 355 (1995); State v. Bryan, 93 Wash.2d 177, 181, 606 P.2d 1228 (1980); State v. Monday, 85 Wash.2d 906, 909-10, 540 P.2d 416 (1975) ("[I]t is the function of the legislature and not of the judiciary to alter the sentencing 52 Ammons, 105 Wash.2d at 181, 713 P.2d 719......
-
State v. Hughes, No. 74147-6
...of the legislature and not of the judiciary to alter the sentencing process.'" Id. (quoting State v. Monday, 85 Wash.2d 906, 909-10, 540 P.2d 416 (1975) (emphasis ¶ 58 Selvidge argues that the court is simply without authority to establish a constitutional procedure for issuing exceptional ......
-
State v. Bassett, No. 94556-0
...of the legislature and not of the judiciary to alter the sentencing process.’ " Id. (quoting State v. Monday, 85 Wash.2d 906, 909-10, 540 P.2d 416 (1975) ).5 In his cross petition for review by this court, Bassett challenged the sentencing judge’s exercise of discretion. See Cross-Pet. for ......
-
State v. Pillatos, No. 75984-7.
...alter the sentencing process."'" Id. (quoting Ammons, 105 Wash.2d at 180, 718 P.2d 796) (quoting State v. Monday, 85 Wash.2d 906, 909-10, 540 P.2d 416 (1975)). We went on to This court will not create a procedure to empanel juries on remand to find aggravating factors because the legislatur......
-
State v. Manussier, No. 61906-9
...1254 amended by 905 P.2d 355 (1995); State v. Bryan, 93 Wash.2d 177, 181, 606 P.2d 1228 (1980); State v. Monday, 85 Wash.2d 906, 909-10, 540 P.2d 416 (1975) ("[I]t is the function of the legislature and not of the judiciary to alter the sentencing 52 Ammons, 105 Wash.2d at 181, 713 P.2d 719......