State v. YoungState v. Young
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Stafford
Thе trial court found defendant guilty of threatening to bomb or otherwise injure a public building in violation of
Defendant’s first three assignments of error stem from a contentiоn that the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s findings of fact and related conclusion of law that defendant threatened to bоmb or otherwise injure a public school building at Central Washington State College. Essentially, the argument is two-pronged: first, it is asserted that the trial court should have believed defendant’s witnesses rather than the state’s; second, it is suggested defendant’s comment was made in jest and thus was not unlawful.
The record discloses substantial еvidence to support the trial court’s findings of fact. They in turn support, the challenged conclusion of law. A determination of guilt will not be set aside upon сonflicting testimony where the state’s evidence warrants a verdict.
State v. Stafford,
44 Wn.2d 353, 267 P.2d 699 (1954). Further, it is no defense that defendant may not have intended to carry out his threat or may have made it only in jest.
Defendant was convicted in Superior Court of violating
Defendant’s position is not well taken. The statute under attack in
Delmore
gave a prosecuting attorney the option of charging violations of the uniform firearms act either as a gross misdemeanor or as a felony. We stated at page 550: “A statute which prescribes different punishments or different degrees of punishment for the same act committed under the same circumstances by persons in like situations is violative of the equal protection clause . . .” Unlike
Delmore,
the defendant in the instant case was chargeable only as a gross misdemeanant. Upon conviction in superior court, he was subject to a possible maximum penalty of 1 year in jail or a fine of $1,000, or both. On the other hand, despite the apparent penalty limitation contained in
If such justice determines that the punishment he is authorized to assess is inadequate to the gravity of the offense he may order such defendant to enter recognizance to appear in the superior court . . . and shall proceed as a committing magistrate.
Thus, unlike the defendant in Delmore, this defendant was not confronted with different punishments for the same act committed under like circumstances by persons in like situations. Also unlike Delmore, the impоsable penalty is not subject to the whim of the prosecuting authority. Rather, only one crime was chargeable and it is a gross misdemeanor. Upon cоnviction, defendant was subject to the *940 identical ultimate imposable punishment whether charged in the justice or the superior court. Further, the ultimate pеnalty imposed under the applicable statutes was subject solely to judicial determination. Consequently, there was no denial of equal proteсtion.
Defendant complains that
The system was not created for the purpose of giving justice court appellant two bites at the apple, so to speak. An appeal from justice court takes the form of a trial de novo only because justice courts are not courts of record.
State v. Miller,
59 Wn.2d 27, 365 P.2d 612 (1961). That being the case, an appeal by means of reviewing the record, as is done in appeals from superior court, is an impossibility. Further, defendant’s assumption that all pеrsons charged in justice court automatically receive two trials
(i.e.,
one in justice court and a de novo trial on appeal) whereas thosе charged in superior court get only one, is incorrect. Although a criminal trial may commence in justice court, it is subject to the judicial determination that the authorized punishment is inadequate for the offense committed. In such case, the justice court judge is empowered to proceed as a сommitting magistrate and remand the matter directly to superior court.
Next, defendant contends that had he been charged in justice court he could have had a jury trial more quickly than in superior court. This, he asserts, denied him his right to a speedy trial. Thе argument fails for at least three reasons. First, the record contains nothing to substantiate the claim that he could have had a jury trial more quickly in justice court. Second, assuming he could have obtained an earlier jury trial in justice court, defendant waived a jury trial and was tried to the court. Thus, the argument is not in point. Third, the record does not indicate that defendant made a demаnd for a speedy trial. Failure to do so constituted a waiver at the time this case was tried. 2 Smith v. Hooey, 393 U.S. 374, 21 L. Ed. 2d 607, 89 S. Ct. 575 (1969); State v. Davis, 2 Wn. App. 380, 467 P.2d 875 (1970).
Defendant also assigns error to the fine imposed by the trial court. He contends it was an abuse of discretion to impose a $750 fine because he was indigent and did not have sufficient funds to comply with the judgment. The sentenсe was imposed on December 8, 1972. Defendant was ordered to pay installments of $250 on January 1, 1974, January 1, 1975, and January 1, 1976 (i.e., 1 year, 2 years and 3 years after judgment). Thus, his indigеncy at the time of sentencing is not relevant. Further, we are aware of no decision which holds that an indigent defendant cannot be ordered to pay a fine. 3 There was no abuse of discretion.
Finally, defendant argues that a conviction under
Hale, C.J., and Finley, Rosellini, Hunter, Hamilton, Wright, Utter, and Brachtenbach, JJ., concur.
Notes
“It shall be unlawful for any person to threaten to bomb or otherwise injure any public or private school building . . .”
This case was tried prior to the adoption of CrR 3.3. The applicability of that rule is not before us.
Williams v. Illinois, 399 U.S. 235, 243, 26 L. Ed. 2d 586, 90 S. Ct. 2018 (1970), held only “that a State may not constitutionally imprison beyond the maximum duration fixed by statute a defendant who is *942 financially unable to pay a fine.” But the court went on to say at page 244: “The State is not powerless to enforce judgments against those financially unable to pay a fine; indeed, a different result would amount to inverse discrimination . . .”