Court Opinion

ID: 9598700
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 01:10:52.618756+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:36:49.245208
License: Public Domain

Donworth, J.
(dissenting in part) — I have no objection to the elimination of the word “jurisdiction” from our former opinion nor to the majority’s general interpretation of the applicable statute and court procedure thereunder.
However, I do not concur in the result reached. The petitioner is now over 20 years of age and, under State v. Ring, 54 Wn.2d 250, 339 P.2d 461 (1959), and State v. Melvin, 144 Wash. 687, 258 Pac. 859 (1927), he is subject to trial upon the information filed in cause No. C-575 in the same manner as if he had been an adult when the alleged burglary was committed. I think that there is no present necessity to hold a hearing to determine nunc pro tunc whether he should or should not have been dealt with as a juvenile in September, 1962.
I would adhere to the result of our prior decision in this proceeding.
Weaver, J., and Barnett, J. Pro Tern., concur with Donworth, J.