Opinion ID: 2607237
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: external reason

Text: The majority makes two crucial admissions. It admits that defense counsel and the prosecutor signed a proposed order to extend the time period on August 12, 1992 two days before the thirty-day period elapsed. [1] Majority, at 974. The majority also admits the judge assigned to the case was out of town on August 12 and 13 and, therefore, unavailable to sign the extension order. Majority, at 973-74. Surely the absence of the judge on the last two days of the filing period amounts to a reason external to the prosecutor under Dearbone. It is true the State did not do everything humanly possible to have the agreement signed by a judge within the initial thirty-day period. As the majority points out, the State could have presented the order to another judge in Pierce County. However, doing everything humanly possible is not the standard for good cause. Dearbone required only a reason external to the prosecutor for his failure to serve notice. Dearbone, 125 Wash.2d at 179, 883 P.2d 303. The absence of the judge in the last two days of the filing period is a significant external factor relating to the State's failure to provide timely notice. [2] Dearbone, 125 Wash.2d at 181, 883 P.2d 303. That is all that is required by Dearbone for good cause to exist.