Thompson v. Smith, 30575.

Decision Date08 April 1949
Docket Number30575.
PartiesTHOMPSON v. SMITH.
CourtWashington Supreme Court

Department 2

Proceeding in the matter of the application of Ray Thompson for a writ of habeas corpus directed to Tom Smith, Superintendent of the Washington State Penitentiary at Walla Walla, Washington. From order denying the writ, the applicant appeals.

Affirmed.

Appeal from Superior Court, Lewis County; John E. Murray, judge.

Ray Thompson, pro se.

Smith Troy and C. John Newlands, both of Olympia, for respondent.

SCHWELLENBACH Justice.

This is an appeal from an order denying an application for a writ of habeas corpus.

Appellant who is confined in the state penitentiary at Walla Walla filed in this court an application for a writ of habeas corpus. The Chief Justice directed that a hearing on the application be held in Lewis county, where appellant had originally been sentenced. The hearing was held February 16, 1948 Before Honorable John E. Murray, Judge. Appellant was present and represented by counsel appointed by the court.

Appellant testified that at the time of his arrest, on a charge in Count I of the information of the crime of burglary and in Count II of the crime of grand larceny, the prosecuting attorney told him that if he did not plead guilty, he (the prosecutor) would bring an habitual criminal charge against him. He testified that he would not have entered a plea of guilty if he had not been threatened with an habitual criminal charge. Mr. John Panesko, who was prosecutor at the time appellant was arrested, testified that appellant asked him whether or not, if he entered a plea of guilty, he, (the prosecutor) would file an habitual criminal charge against him because it would make his third conviction. He advised that he would not. Mr. Panesko testified that appellant then asked him what he would do if he would plead not guilty, as to the habitual criminal charge, and he told appellant that in that event, he would have to await the outcome of the trial Before deciding what to do.

At the close of the hearing the trial court denied the application for the writ. Appellant raises the following issues: (1) that he was coerced into entering his plea; (2) that in accepting his plea of guilty, the court violated his constitutional right of trial by jury; (3) that the counts were improperly joined in the information; (4) that there was no preliminary hearing; (5) that the judgment is void in that the action was prosecuted by information, rather than by the indictment of a grand jury; (6) and that no written complaint was filed by the prosecuting witness.

We shall first dispose of issues (3), (4), and (6). No constitutional questions are raised by any of these issues. Each issue raised is an attempt to attack the judgment and sentence collaterally by habeas corpus proceedings. Such action can be maintained only if the judgment and sentence is void on its...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Austin v. State
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • December 29, 1966
    ...1964); Sorrenti v. United States, 306 F.2d 236 (5th Cir. 1962); Kent v. United States, 272 F.2d 795 (1st Cir. 1959); Thompson v. Smith, 33 Wash.2d 142, 204 P.2d 525 (1949); for the proposition that a promise to recommend leniency upon a plea of guilty, if kept, is not coercion, and that to ......
  • Thorne v. Callahan, 31613
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • August 2, 1951
    ... ... In re Thompson v. Smith, 33 Wash.2d 142, 204 P.2d 525; In re Pennington v. Smith, 35 Wash.2d 267, 212 P.2d 811 ... ...
  • Pennington v. Smith
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • December 14, 1949
    ...was no coercion and such a finding will not be disturbed on appeal unless it is patently unsupported by the weight of the evidence. Thompson v. Smith, supra. prior to arraignment are not subject to inquiry by writ of habeas corpus after conviction and sentence. In Young v. Sanford, 5 Cir., ......
  • Mason v. Cranor
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • May 8, 1953
    ...is confined is void on its face. Mohr v. Smith, 1946, 26 Wash.2d 188, 192, 173 P.2d 141, and cases cited; Thompson v. Smith, 1949, 33 Wash.2d 142, 143, 204 [257 P.2d 213] P.2d 525, and case cited. The judgments and sentences under which petitioner is held are not a part of the record in thi......
  • 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