# In RE DILLENBURG v. Maxwell

> Washington Supreme Court · April 28, 1966 · 70 Wash. 2d 331

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9598700

## Case

- **Full name:** In the Matter of the Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus of Byrle L. Dillenburg, Appellant, v. Roger F. Maxwell, as Superintendent of the State Reformatory, Respondent
- **Court:** Washington Supreme Court
- **Decided:** April 28, 1966
- **Citations:** 70 Wash. 2d 331; 413 P.2d 940; 1966 Wash. LEXIS 900
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Donworth
- **Judges:** Hamilton, Donworth
- **Cited by:** 78 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9598700

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9598700. Public record. Not legal advice.