State v. SassState v. Sass
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Williams
Clayton Sass appeals his conviction of welfare fraud under the provisions of
The first question is whether the disability payments were “income” thus making Sass ineligible for assistance.
(g) An annuity, pension, retirement or disability benefit; veterans‘, workmen‘s, or unemployment compensation; and old-age, survivors‘, or strike benefits;
The payments which Sass received fall under the heading of disability benefit, workmen‘s compensation, or both. He did not report the income as required. If he had, he would not have been eligible for food stamps.
The second question is whether the court erred in imposing a 15-year suspended sentence.
shall be guilty of grand larceny and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by imprisonment in the state penitentiary for not more than fifteen years.
A section of the new criminal code,
Theft and larceny equated. All offenses defined as larcenies outside of this title shall be treated as thefts as provided in this title.
By fixing a 15-year imprisonment penalty, the legislature initially intended that, regardless of the dollar amount involved, those guilty of welfare fraud should be punished the same as for grand larceny — a 15-year sentence. Former
Because of the rule that doubts in construction of penal statutes are to be resolved in favor of lenity toward the defendant,
State v. Arndt,
87 Wn.2d 374, 553 P.2d 1328 (1976), we decide that in the new criminal code the legislature intended that the penalty for the highest degree of
*292
theft now be applied to those convicted of welfare fraud,
i.e.,
10 years, pursuant to
The final question is whether the new penalty provisions should be applied to one of the monthly violations which occurred prior to the effective date of
The judgment is affirmed except that the cause is remanded for resentencing.
Farris and Andersen, JJ., concur.Reconsideration denied December 19, 1979.
Review granted by Supreme Court March 7, 1980.