Respondent's Brief - Washington State Courts

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