Title: City of Seattle v. Reel

State: washington

Issuer: Washington Supreme Court

Document:

69 Wn.2d 227 (1966) 418 P.2d 237 THE CITY OF SEATTLE, Respondent, v. WILLIAM E. REEL, Appellant.[*] No. 38033. The Supreme Court of Washington, Department Two. September 8, 1966. Robert S. Egger, for appellant. A.L. Newbould and John R. Nowell, for respondent. FINLEY, J. William E. Reel, appellant-defendant, was convicted in the Municipal Traffic Court of the City of Seattle on a charge of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. He appealed to the superior court. After a trial de novo in which appellant waived a jury and was tried by the Honorable Frank D. James of the Superior Court for King County, he was again convicted. Here on appeal he claims no error as to the insufficiency of the evidence to convict or as to any other prejudicial errors occurring during the trial. However, he attempts to place his case within the ambit of the reasoning and the decision in Town of Orting v. Rucshner, 66 Wn.2d 732, 404 P.2d 983 (1965). He contends that the trial court was without jurisdiction to try the case because of alleged defects in the citation portion of the uniform citation and complaint issued in this case by the Seattle police officer. The alleged defects constitute appellant's assignments of error, as follows: In the Orting case there was no complaint of any kind whatsoever before the court. We held the trial court was, therefore, without jurisdiction, and remanded the case for dismissal. There is no question that there was a complaint in the instant case. The decision in Orting, supra, is therefore not apt. At the outset of the trial in the superior court, appellant moved for a dismissal on grounds comparable to the errors assigned here on appeal. The motion was denied. Following the trial, the court entered findings of fact, reading in part as follows: [1] Appellant makes no assignment of error to the findings of fact of the trial court, quoted above; consequently, these findings become verities, and establish the facts of this case insofar as this appeal is concerned. We are convinced that the findings of fact, in the absence of any assignment of error, claim, or argument as to their impropriety, are conclusive of the legal proposition that this appeal is entirely without merit. The judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. It is so ordered. ROSELLINI, C.J., WEAVER and HAMILTON, JJ., and BARNETT, J. Pro Tem., concur. [*] Reported in 418 P.2d 237.