State v. Kenyon

Summary

The Supreme Court of Washington held that the trial court violated James Ryan Kenyon's speedy-trial rights under CrR 3.3 by continuing his trial beyond the deadline because one judge was presiding over another trial and the other was on vacation. 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. The court reversed and dismissed the charges with prejudice.

Holdings

1. The unavailability of one judge because the judge was presiding over another trial and the unavailability of the other judge because of vacation amounted to court congestion, not an unavoidable or unforeseen circumstance that automatically excluded the period from the speedy-trial calculation.
2. When a continuance extends a criminal trial beyond the speedy-trial deadline because of judicial or courtroom unavailability, the trial court must document the availability of unoccupied courtrooms and judges pro tempore.
3. Because the trial court failed to document the availability of pro tempore judges and unoccupied courtrooms and Kenyon was tried beyond the applicable speedy-trial period, the charges had to be dismissed with prejudice.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the unavailability of a judge because one judge was presiding over another trial and the other judge was on vacation constituted an unavoidable or unforeseen circumstance excluded from the speedy-trial calculation under CrR 3.3(e)(8).
2. Whether a trial court continuing a criminal trial beyond the speedy-trial deadline must document the availability of unoccupied courtrooms and judges pro tempore under CrR 3.3.
3. Whether Kenyon was entitled to dismissal with prejudice because the trial court failed to make the required record and the trial occurred beyond the speedy-trial deadline.

Disposition

reversed