State v. Wilmot

Citations

• 95 Wash. 326
• 163 P. 742
• 1917 Wash. LEXIS 789

Syllabus

<p>Criminal Law — Prosecution—“Withdrawal”—Dismissal. The “withdrawal” of a charge of grand larceny on the request of the accused in order to enter a plea of guilty of petit larceny, is not a dismissal of the prosecution where that would prevent judgment upon, the plea of guilty.</p> <p>Same — Plea of Guilty — Lesser Included Offense. Rem. Code, § 2168, providing that any person may be found guilty of an offense the commission of which is necessarily included within the crime charged, permits one accused of grand larceny to enter a plea of guilty to the offense of petit larceny.</p> <p>Same — Plea of Guilty — Withdrawal'—Discretion. The allowance of the withdrawal of a plea of guilty is largely discretionary and it is not an abuse of discretion to refuse the same where it appears that the accused acted upon the advice of his attorney and was not unduly influenced, and there was no intimation that he was innocent, his only complaint relating to the severity of the sentence.</p> <p>Same — Habitual Criminal — Identity — Evidence — Sufficiency. A conviction of being an habitual criminal is sustained by certified copies of records of two prior convictions in another state under a different name, where two witnesses testified that accused had admitted his identity and that he had been convicted under that name in those courts and he was positively identified by one witness as the person named in one of the records and who had served a term in the penitentiary under the conviction.</p> <p>Criminal Law — Appeal—Review—Harmless Error. Error cannot be predicated upon the order of proof, in the absence of any showing of prejudice, the order of proof being discretionary with the trial court.</p> <p>Appeal — Record—Statement of Facts — Mistake. An inadvertent mistake in the statement of facts relating to the date of a conviction, is immaterial, where the record shows the correct date to have been as alleged in the information.</p>