Summary
The Washington Supreme Court held that a trial court violated James Ryan Kenyon’s speedy-trial rights by continuing his trial beyond the deadline based on the unavailability of a judge. The court concluded that the circumstances amounted to court congestion and that the trial court failed to document the availability of other courtrooms and judges pro tempore as required. The court reversed and dismissed the charges with prejudice.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the unavailability of a judge because one judge was on vacation and another was presiding over another trial constituted an unavoidable or unforeseen circumstance under CrR 3.3(e)(8) permitting trial beyond the speedy-trial deadline.
- Whether a trial court must make a record of the availability of courtrooms, judges, and judges pro tempore before continuing a criminal trial beyond the speedy-trial period.
- Whether failure to make the required record violated Kenyon's speedy-trial rights and required dismissal of the charges with prejudice.
Holdings
- The unavailability of a judge because the other judge was presiding over another case and one judge was on vacation amounted to court congestion, not an excusable unavoidable circumstance that automatically excluded the period under CrR 3.3(e)(8).
- When a continuance is based on judicial or courtroom unavailability, the trial court must document on the record the availability of unoccupied courtrooms, visiting judges, and judges pro tempore.
- Because the trial court failed to make the required record concerning available courtrooms and judges pro tempore, Kenyon's speedy-trial right was violated and the charges had to be dismissed with prejudice.
Key quotations
“Simply because the rule now allows “unavoidable or unforeseen circumstances” to be excluded in computing the time for trial does not mean judges no longer have to document the details of unavailable judges and courtrooms.” (139)
“The failure to do so violated Kenyon’s right to a speedy trial.” (139)
Factual background
Kenyon was incarcerated after being charged with multiple counts of first degree unlawful possession of a firearm and was arraigned on February 22, 2006. Before the initial speedy-trial deadline, defense counsel requested or necessitated several continuances because of outstanding discovery, investigation, and witness-interview issues, although Kenyon objected to some continuances. After the resulting deadline, the trial court continued the case because one judge was on vacation and the other was presiding over another criminal trial, without documenting the availability of other courtrooms or judges pro tempore. Kenyon was ultimately tried and convicted in August 2006.
Procedural history
Kenyon was charged in superior court, convicted by a jury, and sentenced to 232 months' imprisonment. The trial court denied repeated motions to dismiss under Washington Criminal Rule 3.3. The Court of Appeals affirmed in a partially published opinion, and the Washington Supreme Court granted review, reversed, and dismissed the charges with prejudice.
Remand instructions
The Court of Appeals judgment was reversed, and the criminal charges against Kenyon were dismissed with prejudice.