Court Opinion

ID: 9563169
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 18:37:27.596429+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:45.601214
License: Public Domain

Munson, J.
(dissenting) — I dissent. The language of RCW 9.98, the intrastate procedure for trying untried indictments, informations, and complaints, is the same as the language in RCW 9.100, the uniform agreement on detainers. The reasoning in Fex v. Michigan, 507 U.S. 43, 122 L. Ed. 2d 406, 113 S. Ct. 1085, 1091 (1993) concludes
that the 180-day time period in Article 111(a) of the IAD [Interstate Agreement on Detainers] does not commence until the prisoner’s request for final disposition of the charges against him has actually been delivered to the court and prosecuting officer of the jurisdiction that lodged the detainer against him.
A plain reading of the statute conveys to me the Legislature’s intent that the 120-day period set forth in RCW 9.98.010 cannot commence until the prosecuting attorney and the superior court have notice of the prisoner’s request. The requirement that his request pass through the office of the superintendent of the institution is so that an official can confirm
the term of the commitment under which the prisoner is being held, the time already served, the time remaining to be served on the sentence, the amount of good time earned, the time of parole eligibility of the prisoner, and any decisions of the board of prison terms and paroles relating to the prisoner.
RCW 9.98.010. This is an administrative function. The superintendent is then required to promptly forward the prisoner’s request, together with that certificate, to the *301appropriate prosecuting attorney and superior court by registered mail.
Further, the delay in the prosecution of Mr. Morris was brought about by his seeking discretionary review in this court, which was granted. Once he sought that delay and obtained this court’s ruling, the time for prosecution should start over. State v. Bepple, 14 Wn. App. 491, 542 P.2d 1260 (1975). It is extremely unfair to the court and the prosecuting attorney to say that time prior to the granting of discretionary review counts toward 120 days and, in effect, to leave them 5 days in which to gather their witnesses and make room on the docket to try Mr. Morris. Having caused the delay, he should not benefit from it.
I would reverse.
Review granted at 125 Wn. 2d 1001 (1994).