State v. Williams
| Decision Date | 03 April 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 39968,39968 |
| Citation | 453 P.2d 418,75 Wn.2d 604 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | The STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. James WILLIAMS, Appellant. |
Irving C. Paul, Jr., Seattle, for appellant.
Charles O. Carroll, Pros. Atty., Seattle, William L. Dowell, Deputy Pros. Atty., for respondent.
Defendant appeals from a determination that his transfer from juvenile court to superior court in 1952 for trial on a robbery charge was proper.
The juvenile court declined jurisdiction of defendant on May 7, 1952, without holding a transfer or declination hearing. Defendant pleaded guilty in superior court to one count of robbery and was sentenced to the penitentiary on July 22, 1952. On March 10, 1967, this court, acting in response to a petition for habeas corpus filed by defendant, entered an order directing the King County Superior Court to hold a de novo hearing on the propriety of the original transfer of defendant's case from juvenile to adult court in accordance with In re Dillenburg v. Maxwell, 70 Wash.2d 331, 413 P.2d 940, 422 P.2d 783 (1966). Our order reads in part as follows:
(I)n the event of failure to initiate proceedings as herein prescribed within ninety days of petitioner's delivery to the county where the remitted proceedings are to be held, the petitioner shall be discharged from custody * * *
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Superintendent of the correctional institution involved shall transport and deliver the petitioner to the Sheriff of the County of referral within a reasonable time before the date set for such remitted proceedings * * *.
The hearing on defendant's transfer was not held until October 13, 1967, 217 days after this court's order. At the de novo hearing, a Seattle police officer who, in 1952, had been assigned to the juvenile department, testified that defendant had orally admitted the crime and that he had been identified in a lineup by two robbery victims. Statements by defendant admitting strong-arm robberies were admitted, as were statements by the victims identifying defendant as one of the robbers. Juvenile court records were also admitted which showed that defendant had been adjudged a delinquent child on January 11, 1950. At the time of his transfer to adult authorities on May 7, 1952, defendant was within 4 months of his 18th birthday. The court ruled that the juvenile court's original transfer or declination of jurisdiction was proper.
Defendant first contends that he should be released because the de novo hearing was not held within 90 days of our March 10, 1967, order. That order contains an obvious ambiguity. The hearing is required to be held within 90 days of defendant's transfer to King County, while defendant's transfer is to take place a reasonable time before the hearing date. Thus, no definite time limit for the hearing is set by the order. Under these circumstances we can only construe the order to require a hearing within a reasonable time.
The trial court found that defendant's hearing 'has not been delayed beyond a prejudicial time.' We find nothing in the record to indicate defendant was prejudiced by the delay; and the hearing, although occurring later than would normally be expected, was not delayed an unreasonable time.
Defendant further contends that no meaningful Dillenburg hearing is possible without consideration of his social files prepared by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Watkins
...alleged offense, the juvenile's prio record, home life, and maturity. Kent, 383 U.S. at 566-67, 86 S.Ct. 1045 ; State v. Williams, 75 Wash.2d 604, 606-07, 453 P.2d 418 (1969), overruled in part on other grounds by McRae v. State, 88 Wash.2d 307, 559 P.2d 563 (1977). In Boot, we held that no......
-
In re Hegney
...the Supreme Court set forth in Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541, 566, 86 S.Ct. 1045, 16 L.Ed.2d 84 (1966). State v. Williams, 75 Wash.2d 604, 606-07, 453 P.2d 418 (1969). In Hegney's direct appeal, we already addressed the Kent factors and the trial court's factual determinations regardi......
-
State v. Childress
...or innocence”). 3. Our Supreme Court has adopted the Kent factors to govern decline hearings in Washington. See State v. Williams, 75 Wash.2d 604, 606–07, 453 P.2d 418 (1969); see also State v. Massey, 60 Wash.App. 131, 136–37, 803 P.2d 340 (1990). 4. Childress also asserts that the State f......
-
Burtts' Welfare, In re
...1, 87 S.Ct. 1428, 18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967); Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541, 86 S.Ct. 1045, 16 L.Ed.2d 84 (1966); State v. Williams, 75 Wash.2d 604, 453 P.2d 418 (1969); In re Dillenburg v. Maxwell, Supra. In In re Dillenburg v. Maxwell, Supra, the court, in discussing RCW 13.04.120, state......
-
Table of Cases
.... . 65.04[10] Williams; State v., 12 Wn.2d 16, 120 P.2d 502 (1941) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.04[4][a][iv] Williams; State v., 75 Wn.2d 604, 453 P.2d 418 (1969) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77.05 Williams; State v., 135 Wn.2d 365, 957 P.2d 216 (1998) . . . . . .......
-
§77.05 Declination of Jurisdiction in Favor of Adult Court
...in Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541, 86 S. Ct. 1045, 16 L. Ed. 2d 84 (1966), and adopted by Washington state in State v. Williams, 75 Wn.2d 604, 453 P.2d 418 (1969): 1. The seriousness of the alleged offense to the community and whether the protection of the community requires waiver. 2.......