WHITTON and RITCH -Surname Studies and people from the Island of GRAEMSAY, Orkney

Leo Lemuel Wingard

Leo Lemuel Wingard

Male 1906 - 1996  (90 years)

Personal Information    |    Notes    |    Event Map    |    All

  • Name Leo Lemuel Wingard 
    Born 17 Jul 1906  Tacoma, Pierce County Washington Find all individuals with events at this location 
    Gender Male 
    Died 28 Nov 1996  Tacoma, Pierce County Washington Find all individuals with events at this location 
    Person ID I2002  Ritch
    Last Modified 22 Jun 2020 

    Family Agnes Elva Pennant,   b. 23 Sep 1911, Birkenhead, Cheshire, England Find all individuals with events at this location,   d. Jul 1973, Tacoma, USA Find all individuals with events at this location  (Age 61 years) 
    Married 30 Jun 1933  Kitsap, Washington, USA Find all individuals with events at this location 
     1. John Lemul Wingard,   b. 27 Oct 1935, Tacoma, Pierce County Washington Find all individuals with events at this location,   d. 29 Apr 1998, Tacoma, Pierce County Washington Find all individuals with events at this location  (Age 62 years)  [natural]
     2. Living
     3. Living
    Last Modified 22 Jun 2020 
    Family ID F879  Group Sheet  |  Family Chart

  • Event Map
    Link to Google MapsMarried - 30 Jun 1933 - Kitsap, Washington, USA Link to Google Earth
     = Link to Google Earth 

  • Notes 
    • at 1940 census at 5103 North Shirley Street, Ruston, Peirce Washington a Proprietor

      The Supreme Court of Washington, Department Two.

      August 31, 1961.

      Lemuel L. Wingard, pro se.

      John H. Binns, for respondent.

      HILL, J.

      The issue presented here is relatively simple, i.e., has Leo L. Wingard served two thirty-day sentences in the Pierce county jail and the additional time requisite to pay a fine and costs amounting to $241.40 (or $211.40)? This would seem to be a question of fact, but there are some legal facets.

      In consequence of Mr. Wingard's operation of a junk yard, he was convicted in police court of doing business without a license and of violating the zoning ordinance of the town of Ruston. Both convictions were appealed to the superior court, and the cases were consolidated for trial. On a jury verdict of guilty, in each case, he was sentenced June 30, 1959, to thirty days in jail in each case, the sentences to run consecutively; and he was fined $50 in *594 each case and ordered to pay costs of $80.85 in one case and of $30.55 in the other. The jail sentences were suspended and the defendant placed on probation for two years.

      An order revoking probation and suspension was signed June 13, 1960, and the defendant was directed thereby to surrender to the sheriff of Pierce county, to commence serving his sentences, at 10:00 a.m. July 1, 1960. Another order was entered June 27, 1960, giving defendant a further extension of time until July 7, 1960, at 10:00 a.m.

      It is conceded that he did surrender to the sheriff on July 7th and that he was in the county jail twenty-three days, from July 7 to July 30, 1960; that he was a trusty all of that time; and that during that time he donated a pint of blood to the blood bank.

      The town of Ruston, though commenting on the "strange mathematics which govern jail sentences,"[1] concedes that Mr. Wingard, by serving twenty-three days in the county jail as a trusty and donating a pint of blood, did serve his *595 two consecutive thirty-day sentences, but contends that the jail time did not apply in any way upon the fines and costs. Accordingly, the town of Ruston moved that the defendant be committed to the county jail until the fines and costs were paid.

      August 29, 1960, an order was entered in the Pierce county superior court, in the consolidated cases, ordering that the defendant be "committed to the custody of the Sheriff until the fines and costs in these cases" were paid, and the order provided:

      "... Any time Defendant spends in jail pursuant to this Order shall be credited thereon at the rate of $3.00 per day as per R.C.W. 10.82.030."

      It is from this order that the defendant prosecutes this appeal.

      To understand appellant's contentions, it must be made clear that this is not the first appeal in these cases.

      Appeals were taken from each of the original judgments and sentences entered by the superior court June 30, 1959. (See the second paragraph of this opinion.)

      January 29, 1960: While these appeals (supreme court cases Nos. 35234 and 35235) were pending, but after a motion to dismiss them had been made, the defendant moved in the superior court to vacate the judgments of June 30, 1959. This motion was denied February 9, 1960, and from the order denying this motion there was another appeal (supreme court case No. 35516).

      February 16, 1960: The remittitur came down dismissing the first two appeals. Appellant seizes upon this date as the date on which jail time begins to run, relying on RCW 9.95.060[2], and asserts that his jail sentences expired thirty days later on March 16, 1960, and that thereafter any jail time served must be applied on the fines and costs. He relies on the same order of the superior court judges prescribing *596 rules and regulations for the Pierce county jail, to which we have heretofore referred, to support his contention that the twenty-three days which he served in July, 1960, should be credited at the rate of $8.00 per day (he being a trusty)[3] and that he is entitled to a forty-dollar credit for donating one pint of blood to the blood bank,[4] or a total of $224, which would more than cover the fines and the costs in the judgments and sentences of June 30, 1959, i.e., $211.40.[5] (See second paragraph of this opinion.)

      We turn now to the disposition of the issues raised by appellant:

      [1, 2] The claim that his sentences began to run February 16, 1960, on the day the remittitur came down on his first two appeals, is without merit. RCW 9.95.060 (see note 2), relied on by appellant, has no application except in felony cases. Hodges v. Lawrence (1957), 51 Wn. (2d) 356, 318 P. (2d) 326. Appellant was never in custody, following the sentences imposed June 30, 1959, until he surrendered to the sheriff on July 7, 1960. Any delay in taking a defendant into custody, after conviction and sentencing for a misdemeanor, in no way releases him from the necessity of suffering the full penalty imposed by the sentences. In re Wright (1948), 31 Wn. (2d) 905, 200 P. (2d) 478. See Annotation 72 A.L.R. 1271. Even the rationale of the dissenting judges in the Wright case would require a holding *597 that the appellant's sentences did not begin to run until July 7, 1960.

      The town of Ruston does not here contend that serving twenty-three days as a trustee in the Pierce county jail, plus the donation of a pint of blood, did not satisfy the requirement of the two thirty-day sentences, to be served consecutively; hence, the validity of such commutation of sentences is not before us, nor it is likely that any jail prisoner will ever question such commutation.

      [3] We cannot agree with appellant's contention that the trial court erred in directing that the time spent in jail by the appellant, in serving out his fines and costs, should be credited thereon at the rate of three dollars a day. That is the highest rate authorized by statute,[6] and gives him the benefit of any doubt. The fact that Pierce county may have permitted others (under its jail regulations) to unlawfully[7] work out their fines and costs at four dollars and eight dollars a day, can avail the appellant nothing. We may sympathize with him in his complaint against discrimination, but we cannot change the law which the trial court has correctly applied.

      The trial court's order that the "Defendant is hereby committed to the custody of the Sheriff until the fines and costs in these cases are paid" is affirmed. (Whether "costs in these cases" include the costs of thirty dollars on the dismissal of the appeal in supreme court case No. 35516, as the town of Ruston urges, we do not decide.)

      The further direction that any time spent in jail "pursuant *598 to this Order shall be credited thereon at the rate of $3.00 per day as per RCW 10.82.030" is likewise affirmed.

      FINLEY, C.J., MALLERY, DONWORTH, and HUNTER, JJ., concur.

      October 26, 1961. Petition for rehearing denied.

      Leo Lemuel Wingard "Attorney Pro Se"
      Leo Lemuel Wingard, born July 17, 1906 in Tacoma, Washington, died November 28, 1996 in Tacoma. Leo is survived by his brother, Gordon and wife Jane of Tacoma; 3 sons, James L. Wingard and John L. Wingard of Tacoma, Larry E. Wingard and wife Jean of Lake Bay; 3 grandchildren and 4 great-grandchildren. Leo was a fisherman on Puget Sound for at least twenty years. He started the first Neon Sign business in Tacoma in 1930 at 902 Tacoma Avenue and later moved it to 1702 Commerce Street. He ran the business for seventeen years until no more materials were available during World War II. He retired to the recycling business in Ruston. One of Leo's favorite pastimes was going to Court as "attorney pro se" against the town of Ruston in a long running dispute, winning more often than not, often on such obscure legal arguments as a "demurrer". Leo was a faithful Catholic. He was a member of Holy Cross Catholic Church where he attended Mass and took Sunday collection regularly at 8:30 a.m. Leo and the town of Ruston recently celebrated their 90th birthdays. Rosary will be recited at Holy Cross Catholic Church, Monday, December 2, at 7:00 p.m. Funeral Mass will be at Holy Cross Catholic Church, Tuesday, December 3, at 11:00 a.m. Interment at Calvary Cemetery. Arrangements by Gaffney Cassedy Allen and Buckley King Funeral Home.