Respondent's Brief - Washington State Courts
Respondent's Brief - Washington State Courts
Respondent's Brief - Washington State Courts
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
15, 2010, the second on June 10, 2010, the third on July 19, 2010, the<br />
fourth on September 3, 2010, the fifth on November 2, 2010, the sixth on<br />
December 2, 2010, and the seventh on January 6, 2011. CP 159-66;<br />
Appendix A-H.<br />
Second, while the defendant indicates that all of these continuances<br />
were violations of his "right to a speedy trial," <strong>Brief</strong> of Appellant, p, 30,<br />
35, his argument seems to rely on the time for trial provisions of CrR 3.3<br />
rather than constitutional speedy trial analysis, Compare <strong>Brief</strong> of<br />
Appellant, p. 30-36 with, e.g., <strong>State</strong> v. Iniguez, 167 Wn.2d 273, 217 P.3d<br />
768 (2009)( ing] examin[ the contours of the constitutional right to a speedy<br />
trial.")). Therefore, the <strong>State</strong>'s response here is also in terms of CrR 33.<br />
Should the Court desire additional briefing on constitutional speedy trial,<br />
the <strong>State</strong> would welcome the opportunity to provide it.<br />
Third, although the defendant states that he does "not concede]<br />
the propriety of any continuances in this case," neither does he make any<br />
showing that the court abused its discretion in granting the continuances<br />
on June 10, 2010, November 2, 2010, and December 2, 201 See <strong>Brief</strong> of<br />
Appellant, p. 30-36. Because an appellate court "will not disturb the trial<br />
court's decision [to grant a continuance] unless the appellant or petitioner<br />
makes 'a clear showing... that [ the trial court's[ discretion fisl<br />
manifestly unreasonable, or exercised on untenable grounds, orfor<br />
41 - optest-prosmisesptrialmcdaniel.doc