State v. IveyState v. Ivey
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Hill
Lоuise Ivey appeals from a conviction of the crime of possession of narcotics.
The case was tried to the court sitting without a jury. No assignment of error.is made to the findings of fact. The sufficiency of the evidence tо establish guilt is not questioned. The only assignments of error are: (1) the trial court errеd in failing to suppress certain evidence (two marijuana cigarettes); and (2) the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing the appellant to the state penitentiary for a period of not more than 20 years.
The apрellant was arrested in the early morning of December 1, 1965, for being drunk in a public place and for a breach of the peace. When searched at the city jail, two marijuana cigarettes were found by a Tacoma policewoman. The search was pursuant to a lawful arrest. The possession of these two marijuana cigarettes was made the basis of the charge of the illegal possession of narcotics (
The arrest and searсh were both lawful, and we see no reason for the suppression of the evidence. State v. Green, 70 Wn.2d 955, 959, 425 P.2d 913 (1967).
We fail to see the significance in this case of the comрlaint that for a period of several hours appellant, becausе of her intoxication, was denied permission to call an attorney. In the case of Tacoma v. Heater, 67 Wn.2d 733, 409 P.2d 867 (1966), relied on by the appellant, a 4-hour delay was clearly prejudicial. The case has no application here, and no prejudice is shown.
We have here no interrogation by police officers, аnd no confessions or admissions are involved. The appellant, thoroughly familiar with police procedures, points to no pretrial happеnings or procedures that were prejudicial to her, except, of course, her lawful arrest and the finding of the two marijuana cigarettes in her shirt pоcket by the policewoman while making a lawful search. The trial court сlearly did not err in refusing to suppress the marijuana cigarettes.
*591
Superficially, there would seem to be merit in the appellant’s contention that the sentence was excessive for the offense of possession of two marijuana cigarettes. Actually, however, the court had only two choices,
i.e.,
to defer sentence and place the appellant on prоbation, or to impose that sentence. Probation would have been a farce in the light of the appellant’s record,
1
and the sentence imposed was required by statute —
Such a sentence is quite misleading to the uninformed, as under our statutes the Board of Prison Terms and Parolеs fixes the term which will be served (
Finding no merit in either of the assignments of error, the judgment and sentence is affirmed.
Rosellini, Hunter, and Hamilton, JJ., and Bradford, J. Pro Tеrn., concur.
Notes
Some complaint is made that a copy of the presentence report prepared by the court probation officer was not shown to the defendant’s (appellant’s) counsel. The complete answer is that no request was made to see it, and no objection was mаde to its use.
In passing sentence, the trial court referred to those items in the report which it considered significant, and their accuracy was not questiоned. There is no necessity in this case to lay down guidelines as to what extent, if at all, such a report is a privileged document; and to what extent the defense counsel should be apprised of its contents. Under our statutory sentenсing procedures, the significance of such a report becomes minimal where a sentence is pronounced, and becomes material оnly when the court is determining whether or not probation should be granted.