Respondent's Brief - Washington State Courts

At that July 19, 2010 motion, the defendant indicated that he still
needed to interview Wendell, that the court was on recess for some time
period in August, ending August 23, and that defense counsel was on a
4
4county- mandated furlough" the following week. 07/19/ 10 RP 4-6.
Nevertheless, the defendant objected to the continuance. 07/19/ 10 RP 7-8.
The trial court found that a continuance of the trial date was
required in the administration ofjustice pursuant to CrR3,3( f)( 2) and the
defendant will not be prejudiced in his or her defense" because of the
unavailability of two of the State's witnesses, and defendant's need to
interview one of them. CP 162; 07/19/ 10 RP 9-10; Appendix D.
Because, "the unavailability of a key witness is a valid reason for a
continuance." Iniguez, 167 Wn.2d at 294; Lillard, 122 Wn. App. 422, and
scheduling conflicts may be considered in granting continuances."
Flinn, 154 Wn.2d at 200, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in
granting the July 19, 2010 continuance of the trial to September 9, 2010.
Finally, with respect to the January 6, 2011 continuance, the
defendant seems to argue that the court abused its discretion because it
made no record of why another courtroom could not hear the matter, or
that other courtrooms were unavailable." Brief of Appellant, p. 36.
Although the defendant is correct that the court made no such record, see
46 - optest-pros m iscsptri al -mcdan ie 1, doc