Court Opinion

ID: 9626315
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 08:08:14.38908+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:06:25.454994
License: Public Domain

Dore, J.
(dissenting) — I believe that the State should be able to correct an erroneous sentence but it must do so within a reasonable amount of time. In both of the cases relied on by the majority — State v. Pringle, 83 Wn.2d 188, 517 P.2d 192 (1973) and State v. Luke, 42 Wn.2d 260, 254 P.2d 718, cert. denied, 345 U.S. 1000 (1953) — the State immediately corrected the invalid sentence, and neither case enhanced the punishment. In the present case, the State did not correct the erroneous sentence caused by its error until 2 years after it had been imposed, and a 20-year sentence was increased to life. There has to come a time when a defendant can rely on the sentence imposed by the State. There has to be a finality of the criminal legal process for the defendant. The State should be prohibited from substantially raising a defendant's sentence 2, 4, or 8 years after a defendant had been sentenced because of the State's fault.
An illustrative example of the injustice that can occur under the majority's holding is the following. A defendant is erroneously sentenced to life imprisonment when he should have received the death penalty. Five years after his erroneous sentence had been imposed, caused by its error, the State, on a nunc pro tunc judgment and sentence, seeks to have him executed. This surely would shock the majority's sense of justice. While the result in this example is *645more severe than the present case, the principle nonetheless remains the same. I feel strongly that a 2-year delay in correcting a sentence, which enhances a punishment caused by the error of the State, cannot be summarily corrected by an amended judgment nunc pro tunc, without a hearing, without total violation of defendant's due process rights and violation of our state and federal constitutions.
The majority granted the defendant the right of appeal. This raises, however, additional problems that may create great injustices. If the nunc pro tunc judgment and sentence is affirmed, Smissaert can never challenge his enhanced life sentence in a proper hearing forum. On the other hand, the parties may be prejudiced by the unavailability of witnesses 5 years after the original conviction, in the event of a reversal and new trial.
I would reverse the Court of Appeals and order the trial court to reinstate the defendant's original judgment and sentence.