Ralph McNutt v. Merle E. Schneckloth, as Superintendent of the Washington State Penitentiary at Walla Walla, Washington, 241 F.2d 128 (9th Cir. 1957). · Go Syfert
Search
Ralph McNutt v. Merle E. Schneckloth, as Superintendent of the Washington State Penitentiary at Walla Walla, Washington, 241 F.2d 128 (9th Cir. 1957). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
3 citation events across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Stiltner v. Rhay (waed, 1965-06-28)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Stiltner v. Rhay
E.D. Wash. · 1965 · confidence medium
This view was concurred in by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, McNutt v. Schneckloth, 241 F.2d 128, 129 (1957), which said, in addition, that correction of an erroneous sentence does not violate any constitutional rights of the petitioner.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Ralph McNUTT, Appellant,
v.
Merle E. SCHNECKLOTH, as Superintendent of the Washington State Penitentiary at Walla Walla, Washington, Appellee
15185_1.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Feb 1, 1957.
241 F.2d 128
Ralph McNutt in pro. per., Don Eastvold, Atty. Gen. of Washington, Michael R. Alfieri, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Stephens, Fee, Barnes.
Cited by 3 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM, i

McNutt, a state prisoner, appeals from a denial by the District Court of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Mc-Nutt argues that his constitutional rights were violated when the state trial court vacated his sentence of imprisonment in the state penitentiary “for not less than ten years” and entered a nunc pro tunc judgment and sentence in which he was sentenced to a terna of “not more than twenty years”.

Under the laws of Washington the first sentence entered by the state trial court was erroneous. When this fact was brought to the attention of the trial court, McNutt was; returned to the court and a correct sentence was entered. See McNutt v. Delmore, 47 Wash.2d 563, 288 P.2d 848.

[*129] We have examined the various contentions raised by appellant and find them without merit. We agree with the reasoning of the Washington Supreme Court that when a sentence has been imposed for which there is no authority in law, the trial court has the power and the duty to expunge the void sentence and pronounce legal sentence, whenever the defect is discovered.

Affirmed.