Court Opinion

ID: 9794611
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 03:08:30.848719+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:12.280826
License: Public Domain

Kirkwood J.*
(dissenting) — Once again the majority is setting free a convicted criminal by the technical application of a technical rule. I find it incomprehensible that this court will compound the error promulgated by State v. Edwards, 94 Wn.2d 208, 616 P.2d 620 (1980) by dismissing a conviction on three counts of first degree robbery, when Edwards is so demonstrably wrong.
The former CrR 3.3(b) provided, in plain language, two triggering events, and no amount of semantics or legal legerdemain can change that plain meaning.
As the author of these rules, this court, of course, is in a position to reveal the actual meaning which was sought to be conveyed. However, we approach them as though they had been drafted by the legislature, and give the words their ordinary meaning, reading the language as a whole and seeking to give effect to all of it.
State v. McIntyre, 92 Wn.2d 620, 622, 600 P.2d 1009 (1979) *684(citing State ex rel. Schillberg v. Everett Dist. Justice Court, 90 Wn.2d 794, 797, 585 P.2d 1177 (1978)).
A rule of construction is that language which is clear upon its face does not require or permit any construction. State v. McIntyre, supra; State v. Roth, 78 Wn.2d 711, 479 P.2d 55 (1971).
This court should admit its error, cut the Gordian knot, and overrule Edwards.
I dissent from the opinion of the majority, and would affirm the Court of Appeals.
Reconsideration denied September 13, 1983.

 Judge John H. Kirkwood is serving as a justice pro tempore of the Supreme Court pursuant to Const. art. 4, § 2(a) (amend. 38).