Court Opinion

ID: 9626681
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 08:21:19.010535+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:10:48.302623
License: Public Domain

Munson, J.
(dissenting) — When Mr. Hammond appeared in Benton County Superior Court on September 13, 1988, an order estabhshing conditions of release pending trial pursuant to CrR 3.2 was entered. That order set bail in the amount of $2,500, which could be secured by bond or posting of cash; he was to contact his attorney every Thursday; to make all court appearances; travel was restricted to Benton *593and Franklin Counties; his residence was restricted to the address "set out below"; and he was to have no contact with the complaining witness.
Mr. Hammond agreed to those conditions by his signature and date of September 23, 1988, giving the address of 1101 West Gribble, Richland. As noted on the form, he was given the quadruplicate copy. The record reflects he was present in court on September 30, 1988, when the State's request for a continuance was granted and the court reset his trial date for October 31,1988; he was subsequently released. He returned for a pretrial conference on October 21,1988. There is nothing in the record of his lack of funds. He departed thereafter for his parents' home in Gault, California.
Mr. Hammond violated the conditional terms of his release by traveling to California. He notified his attorney of his unavailability for trial on October 31, 1988, in that he was in California with insufficient funds to return for trial. There is no indication that Mr. Hammond traveled to California other than under his own free will. Apparently, when contacted telephonically on October 31, after counsel advised the court of Mr. Hammond's inability to return for trial, he was told the trial would begin on Wednesday, November 2, 1988.
I agree that Mr. Hammond could not be sentenced to an exceptional sentence based on his absconding, having already been sentenced for bail jumping.
However, there was no objection to the trial date of October 31 at the time the continuance was granted, nor at the pretrial conference on October 21; there is no indication that Mr. Hammond would have been unable to attend had he stayed in Richland as the conditional order required; there is no showing he had no means of support while remaining in Benton and Franklin Counties; he had money or access to sufficient money to make bail and to travel to California; he had no objection to the trial date of October 31. He remained a fugitive for nearly 2 years until he was back in the state and sentenced. There is no assurance Mr. Hammond would have returned by November 15, 1988, the *594date to which he requested trial be continued. Had he reappeared and submitted to the court's jurisdiction relatively close to the trial date, I might agree with the majority, but not after an absence of almost 2 years. As noted, the act with which he was charged had occurred in 1985; his first court appearance was in August 1988. The "tail is wagging the dog" in this case. Mr. Hammond will not be heard to complain when he voluntarily failed to appear after violating the conditional order of his release.
I would affirm the conviction and the exceptional sentence but reject the additional time based on his having absconded the jurisdiction of the court. He had already been convicted for that misconduct.
Review granted at 120 Wn.2d 1001 (1992).