State v. Skinner

4 Citing cases

  1. State v. Melos

    713 P.2d 138 (Wash. Ct. App. 1986)   Cited 7 times
    In Melos, an indigent defendant assigned error to the trial court's refusal to authorize the expenditure of public funds for a psychiatric examination.

    Rather, the trial court has the discretion to grant a deferred sentence upon such terms and conditions as it shall determine, State v. Bennett, 35 Wn. App. 298, 300, 666 P.2d 390 (1983), and the State's sentencing recommendation is not binding upon the court. State v. Skinner, 3 Wn. App. 367, 368, 475 P.2d 129 (1970). Consequently, it cannot be said that Melos was denied due process.

  2. In re Palodichuk

    22 Wn. App. 107 (Wash. Ct. App. 1978)   Cited 53 times
    In Palodichuk, the prosecutor recommended a suspended sentence and probation, but then told the court he had obtained new information that gave him "'second thoughts about that recommendation.'"

    As in the law of contracts, a party to an agreement cannot refuse to adhere to the terms of a bargain because it later discovers information which may have caused it to enter a different bargain without suffering the consequences of a breach. We recognize that the decision to grant or deny probation rests exclusively within the discretion of the trial judge, State v. Skinner, 3 Wn. App. 367, 369, 475 P.2d 129 (1970), and that the judge may consider whatever information necessary to impose sentence. E.g., State v. Buntain, 11 Wn. App. 101, 106, 521 P.2d 752 (1974).

  3. State v. Buntain

    11 Wn. App. 101 (Wash. Ct. App. 1974)   Cited 14 times

    However, the scope of the inquiry is not limitless; there must be concern for the probable accuracy of the information gathered for this purpose. United States v. Tucker, 404 U.S. 443, 30 L.Ed.2d 592, 92 S.Ct. 589 (1972); Specht v. Patterson, 386 U.S. 605, 18 L.Ed.2d 326, 87 S.Ct. 1209 (1967); Williams v. Oklahoma, 358 U.S. 576, 3 L.Ed.2d 516, 79 S.Ct. 421 (1959); Williams v. New York, supra; United States v. Picard, 464 F.2d 215 (1st Cir. 1972); State ex rel. Woodhouse v. Dore, 69 Wn.2d 64, 71, 416 P.2d 670 (1966); State v. Harris, 10 Wn. App. 509, 518 P.2d 237 (1974); State v. Skinner, 3 Wn. App. 367, 475 P.2d 129 (1970). No contention is made that defendant was denied an opportunity to view the presentence report, or to be heard in defense, refutation, or explanation of the portion of the presentence report here challenged; nor is there an assertion that the sentence imposed was based upon misinformation.

  4. State v. Johnson

    488 P.2d 769 (Wash. Ct. App. 1971)   Cited 1 times

    [1] The granting of probationary status, which is the sole issue on this appeal, rests almost exclusively with the trial judge. State v. Riddell, 75 Wn.2d 85, 449 P.2d 97 (1968); State v. Skinner, 3 Wn. App. 367, 475 P.2d 129 (1970). We have examined the record, including appellant's pro se brief, and have determined that the trial court's refusal to grant probation was neither arbitrary nor capricious, but was well within the sound exercise of judicial discretion.