Court Opinion

ID: 9567465
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:54:11.214857+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:00:37.709905
License: Public Domain

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.