Respondent's Brief - Washington State Courts

01/06/ 11 RP; CP 166, Appendix H, it was not required to do so because it
did not continue the trial past the time for trial deadline.
In Kenyon, the Supreme Court held that a trial court may continue
a trial beyond the time-fortrial deadline for "court congestion," but that
when doing so, the " trial court must document the available courtrooms
and judges." Kenyon, 167 Wn.2d at 135-39. However, Kenyon also
stands for the proposition that such a review must be made only when the
trial date is continued past the time for trial deadline, In the present case,
the court did not continue the trial date past the time for trial deadline.
As demonstrated above, because Defendant failed to show that the
court abused its discretion in granting the December 2, 2010 continuance,
which continued the trial to January 6, 2011, this Court should affirm the
court's decision to grant that continuance. See Flinn, 154 Wn.2d at 199.
Because, under CrR3.3( b)( 5), the allowable time for trial cannot expire
earlier than 30 days after the end of the period during which a trial is
properly continued, the time for trial deadline as of the January 6, 2011
trial date was 30 days after January 6, 2011, or February 5, 2011. Hence,
when the court granted the January 6, 2011 motion continuing the trial to
January 13, 2011, it did not continue the trial date past the time for trial
deadline of February 5, 2011. As a result, under Kenyon, 167 Wn.2d at
135-39, the court was not required to document the available courtrooms
47 - optest-prosmiscsptrialmcdanief.doc