Respondent's Brief - Washington State Courts

and judges at the time of that continuance. Therefore, this continuance
was not an abuse of discretion, and the trial court and the defendant's
conviction should be affirmed.
However, even assuming that it was err for the court to fail to
document the available courtrooms and judges, the proper remedy would
not be dismissal. Under CrR 3.3( h), the only basis for dismissal under
CrR 3.3 is a failure to bring a case to trial within the time limit established
under the rule. Because trial in this case commenced on January 13, 2011,
RP 3-5, the case was brought to trial before the February 5, 2011, time
limit established by CrR 3.3. Therefore, the failure to conduct a review of
courtrooms, even if err, could not serve as a basis for dismissal under CrR
3.3.
Hence, the defendant has failed to make a clear showing that the
trial court abused its discretion in granting the continuances in this case.
Because an appellate court will not disturb the trial court's decision to
grant a continuance unless an appellant makes such a showing, Flinn, 154
Wn.2d at 199, the trial court's decisions to grant the continuances in this
case should be affirmed.
48 - optest-prosm iscsptrial mcdan - iel. doc