Case Name: The State of Washington, Appellant, v. Anthony Joseph Kray, et al, Respondents; The State of Washington, Appellant, v. David Lee Ramsey, Respondent
Court: Washington Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Washington
Decision Date: 1982-03-08
Citations: 31 Wash. App. 388
Docket Number: No. 8407-1-I
Parties: The State of Washington, Appellant, v. Anthony Joseph Kray, et al, Respondents. The State of Washington, Appellant, v. David Lee Ramsey, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Washington Appellate Reports
Volume: 31
Pages: 388–392

Head Matter:
[No. 8407-1-I.
Division One.
March 8, 1982.]
The State of Washington, Appellant, v. Anthony Joseph Kray, et al, Respondents. The State of Washington, Appellant, v. David Lee Ramsey, Respondent.
Norm Maleng, Prosecuting Attorney, and Carol Hepburn, Deputy, for appellant.
Catherine C. Morrow, Morrow & Duncan, and George Thornton and Ronald Kessler of Seattle-King County Public Defender Association, for respondents.

Opinion:
Williams, J.
The State appeals dismissal of charges against defendants Kray, Mendoza, and Ramsey because they were not prosecuted within the speedy trial time limits of CrR 3.3(b)(1) as interpreted in State v. Edwards, 94 Wn.2d 208, 616 P.2d 620 (1980). We reverse.
None of these defendants were tried or given a preliminary hearing within 100 days of arrest and release. All trial dates were set within 90 days following defendants' bind-over from district to superior court. The criminal rules in effect at the time of these arrests provided:
A defendant who is released from custody shall be brought to trial within 90 days of the applicable event set forth in subsection (b)(1).
CrR 3.3(b)(3).
The time limits set forth in subsections (b)(2) and (b)(3) shall commence to run from the date: (a) of the order binding the defendant over to the superior court following a preliminary hearing pursuant to JCrR 2.03 or (b) of the tenth day following the defendant's arrest in the event a preliminary hearing is not held or the charge is initially filed in the superior court.
CrR 3.3(b)(1). The sole issue in this case is whether the Supreme Court's interpretation of CrR 3.3 in State v. Edwards, supra applies retroactively, requiring dismissal of all cases not tried within 100 days of arrest.
This court recently decided this issue in the case of State v. Darden, 30 Wn. App. 460, 635 P.2d 760 (1981). We agree with the reasoning in that case and hold State v. Edwards will be given prospective application.
The dismissals are reversed and the cases remanded for trial.
Corbett, J., concurs.