The opinion of the court was delivered by: BOWEN
To an information filed in the Superior Court of the State of Washington for Clallam County charging this plaintiff as defendant there with the crime of grand larceny, he entered a plea of guilty and thereafter, on September 27, 1948, he was by the Court adjudged guilty and sentenced to imprisonment in the State penitentiary for a period not to exceed ten years, the execution of the sentence, however, being then suspended upon certain stated conditions.
On November 12, 1948, an order of the State Court was entered revoking the previous order of suspension of execution of the sentence and the defendant was ordered committed to the State penitentiary for the purpose of execution of his sentence.
Thereafter on May 11, 1949, pursuant to State law, Rem.Rev.Stat.Supp. § 10249 -- 2, the State Board of Prison Terms and Paroles entered an order stating in part that "* * * The Board of Prison Terms and Paroles, having fully considered the Prosecuting Attorney's and Judge's statement of the facts surrounding said convicted person's crime and other information relative to such convicted person, and having interviewed said convicted person;
"Now, Therefore, By virtue of the authority in it vested by the laws of the State of Washington, and within six months after the admission of such convicted person to the Washington State Penitentiary, the Board of Prison Terms and Paroles fixes the duration of his confinement as follows, to-wit:
"That said Nels Siipola be and he is hereby ordered to be confined in the Washington State Penitentiary at Walla Walla, Washington, for a period of ten (10) years, * * *", although the trial judge and the prosecuting attorney each had recommended that defendant's minimum term of imprisonment be fixed at two years.
On December 30, 1949, the plaintiff filed in this Court this action in equity praying for a writ of injunction restraining defendant members of the Board of Prison Terms and Paroles from enforcing said order of May 11, 1949, upon the alleged grounds that said order was unjust, discriminatory and unreasonable and violated plaintiff's rights under the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, in that said order exceeded the recommendation of the sentencing judge and the prosecuting attorney and was void because it was in excess of the powers conferred by statute or which could be conferred by statute upon the Board.