In a series of recent habeas corpus cases in the state of Washington the Supreme Court of that state found it necessary to declare void sentences based upon a finding that the defendant was "guilty of the crime of habitual criminal". There is no such crime in Washington, and the sentences were held to be, not merely erroneous, but absolutely void. Nevertheless, the court ordered the petitioners returned to the sentencing courts so that proper sentences might be imposed. See, Blake v. Mahoney, 9 Wn.2d 110, 113 P.2d 1028; In re Cress, 13 Wn.2d 7, 123 P.2d 767; In re Towne, 14 Wn.2d 633, 129 P.2d 230; In re Richardson, 16 Wn.2d 709, 133 P.2d 810; Lee v. Cranor, 38 Wn.2d 831, 233 P.2d 535. In the Towne case the court, speaking through Steinert, J., summed up the situation thus: "Petitioner's status is, therefore, that of a convicted criminal who has not yet been properly sentenced."