State v. Williams, 34039
| Decision Date | 24 October 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 34039,34039 |
| Citation | 316 P.2d 913,51 Wn.2d 182 |
| Parties | The STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Lawrence WILLIAMS, Appellant. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Clyde C. Houston, Warden, for appellant.
Paul A. Klasen, Jr., Ephrata, for respondent.
The defendant was charged with second-degree assault and, after counsel had been appointed to represent him and had been given an opportunity to prepare his defense, he entered a plea of guilty. He appeared for sentencing on September 28, 1956, and at that time, statements of the prosecuting witnesses, husband and wife, concerning the circumstances of the crime, were read into the record. If the accusations contained in these statements were true, the defendant was also chargeable with attempted rape and sodomy at the time and place of the assault. One of the witnesses appeared at the hearing and asked the court to deal leniently with the defendant, stating, in effect that if he had not acted so hastily in defense of his wife, the defendant might not have assaulted him. At the conclusion of this hearing, the court entered judgment against the defendant and sentenced him to a maximum of fifteen years in the state reformatory.
Thereafter, it was discovered that through an error of the prosecutor, the sentence imposed was greater than the maximum prescribed by RCW 9.11.020, defining the crime of assault in the second degree and fixing the maximum punishment. The court thereupon vacated the judgment for the purpose of correcting the sentence, and ordered the defendant returned for resentencing. On October 19, 1956, the day set for the hearing on the resentencing, the defendant filed a motion to change his plea from guilty to not guilty, alleging by affidavit that he had not been able to recall the events of the night of the crime, by reason of the fact that he was intoxicated at the time, and had to rely upon the statements of the prosecuting witnesses for knowledge of his guilt or innocence, and further that the testimony of one of the witnesses in court on the day of the hearing had shown that he was not at fault.
After some argument on this motion, the court denied it for the reason that it was not properly before the court at that time. The defendant did not move for a continuance, and the motion was never brought on for hearing. Instead, the defendant gave oral notice of appeal from the denial of the motion. He was thereupon sentenced to a maximum term of ten years, as provided by statute.
Two questions have been presented on appeal. They can be disposed of without a further discussion of the circumstances of the crime.
The first error alleged is that the court erred in admitting the unsworn statements of the prosecuting witnesses at the first hearing, the contention being that he was improperly influenced by these statements. The sentencing judge is required to furnish the board of prison terms and paroles a statement of all the facts concerning the convicted person's crime and any other information of which he may be possessed relative to the defendant, together with a recommendation of what, in his judgment, should be the duration of the convicted person's imprisonment. See RCW 9.95.030. These statements could be considered by the court for that purpose and also for the purpose of deciding whether to suspend sentence, but not for the purpose of deciding upon the maximum to be imposed, since, under RCW 9.95.010, the court has no discretion in fixing the maximum sentence, that being provided by statute. The suspending of a sentence is a matter which rests in the sound discretion of the trial court, which can make whatever investigation it deems necessary or desirable. The defendant is not entitled to a hearing on this matter. State v. Cohen, 11 Wash.2d 203, 118 P.2d 959. No right of the defendant was prejudiced by the admission of the statements of the witnesses. We point the lack of merit in this assignment of error without deciding whether the question is properly raised on an appeal taken, not from...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Blight
...question rests almost exclusively with the trial judge. State v. Dainard,85 Wash.2d 624, 626, 537 P.2d 760 (1975); State v. Williams, 51 Wash.2d 182, 185, 316 P.2d 913 (1957). In reviewing the denial of probation, the question before this court is whether the trial judge abused his discreti......
-
State v. Smissaert
...87 S.Ct. 1319, 18 L.Ed.2d 347 (1967); State ex rel. Sharf v. Municipal Court, 56 Wash.2d 589, 354 P.2d 692 (1960); State v. Williams, 51 Wash.2d 182, 316 P.2d 913 (1957); McNutt v. Delmore, 47 Wash.2d 563, 288 P.2d 848 (1955), cert. denied, 350 U.S. 1002, 76 S.Ct. 550, 100 L.Ed. 866 (1956).......
-
State v. Short
...improper for the sentencing judge to consider unsworn statements of a prosecuting witness at the sentencing hearing. State v. Williams, 51 Wash.2d 182, 316 P.2d 913 (1957). The procedural requirements of due process are satisfied if the convicted felon is apprised of the facts and charges i......
-
Stiltner v. Rhay
...that correction of an erroneous sentence does not violate any constitutional rights of the petitioner. See also, State v. Williams, 51 Wash.2d 182, 185, 316 P.2d 913 (1957). The fact that only a portion of the sentence of the trial court is erroneous does not permit this Court to ignore it ......