Williams v. Smith
| Decision Date | 29 June 1946 |
| Docket Number | 29888. |
| Citation | 25 Wn.2d 273,171 P.2d 197 |
| Parties | WILLIAMS v. SMITH, Superintendent of State Penitentiary. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Department 2
In the matter of the application of Glenn Williams for a writ of habeas corpus to Tom Smith, as Superintendent of the Washington State Penitentiary. From an order denying the petition, petitioner appeals.
Affirmed.
Appeal from Superior Court, Spokane County; Chas. W. Greenough judge.
Glenn Williams, of Walla Walla, for himself.
Smith Troy and Edward J. Lehan, both of Olympia, for respondent.
This is an appeal from an order of the superior court for Spokane county denying a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
July 13, 1938, in case No. 1560, in the superior court for Chelan county, appellant was found guilty on three counts of an amended information charging him with first-degree forgery.
On the same day, the prosecuting attorney of Chelan county filed, in cause No. 1615, an information accusing 'Glenn Williams of being an habitual criminal.' Appellant was brought to trial September 14, 1938, on this information. The jury, by its verdict, found the defendant 'guilty of the crime of being an habitual criminal.' (Italics ours.)
On that day, September 14, 1938, the court pronounced sentence and entered judgment in cause No. 1560--the cause in which appellant was found guilty of forgery--committing appellant to the state penitentiary for life. At the same time, the court entered a like judgment and sentence in cause No. 1615.
If the legality of appellant's detention in the penitentiary depended on the latter judgment and sentence, it could not be sustained, for, in Blake v. Mahoney, 9 Wash.2d 110 113 P.2d 1028, 1029, we held:
(Italics ours.)
But the legality of appellant's detention is not to be determined by the void judgment and sentence entered in cause No. 1615; for a correct judgment and sentence was entered on the forgery charges in cause No. 1560, 'the last offense' of which he had been convicted. As indicated in Blake v. Mahoney, supra, this was the proper procedure. See State ex rel. Edelstein v. Huneke, 140 Wash. 385, 249 P. 784, 250 P. 469.
Construing Rem.Rev.Stat. § 1075, relating to writs of habeas corpus, we have repeatedly held that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lisby v. State
...State v. Bardmess, 54 Nev. 84, 7 P.2d 817 (1932); People v. Dunlop, 102 Cal.App.2d 314, 227 P.2d 281 (1951); Williams v. Smith, 25 Wash.2d 273, 171 P.2d 197 (1946); Ex parte Broom, 198 Or. 551, 255 P.2d 1081 (1953); Castle v. Gladden, 201 Or. 353, 270 P.2d 675 While this Court in State v. B......
-
Tosto v. City of Seattle
... ... About six ... hundred and twenty feet south of Bertona street, the Dravus ... street bridge crosses Smith's cove and the Great Northern ... tracks ... The bus ... involved in the accident was a shuttle bus which ran from ... ...
-
Mohr v. Smith, 30010.
... ... In re Clark, Wash., 163 P.2d 577; In re Rice, ... Wash., 163 P.2d 583; In re Behrens, Wash. 163 ... P.2d 587; In re Sanford, Wash., 163 P.2d 591; In ... re Domanski, Wash., 163 P.2d 593; Gerard v. Smith, ... Wash., 170 P.2d 332; Williams v. Smith, Wash., ... 171 P.2d 197; Fathers v. Smith, Wash., 171 P.2d ... 1012 ... It will ... be noted that, in this case, petitioner pleaded guilty to the ... charge of the substantive offense of attempted rape and also ... to the charge of being an ... ...
-
State v. Kelly
...9.92.090 does not constitute an offense in itself, but merely provides an increased punishment for the last offense. Williams v. Smith, 1946, 25 Wash.2d 273, 171 P.2d 197; State v. Johnson, 1938, 194 Wash. 438, 78 P.2d 561. In order to establish the status of an accused as an habitual crimi......