Summary
The Washington Supreme Court held that a defendant is "detained in jail" for purposes of calculating time elapsed in district court under CrR 3.3(c)(2)(ii) only when detained on the current charge, not an unrelated charge in another county. The court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated Herbert Hardesty's residential burglary conviction.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether a defendant detained in another county on an unrelated charge is 'detained in jail' for purposes of commencing 'time elapsed in district court' under CrR 3.3(c)(2)(ii)
Holdings
- A defendant is 'detained in jail' for purposes of commencing 'time elapsed in district court' only if, at the time the State files a complaint, the defendant is detained on that current charge.
- The phrase 'detained in jail' does not require detention in the filing county; the proper focus is whether the defendant is detained on the current charge.
Key quotations
“We hold that 'time elapsed in district court' commences with the filing of the complaint if the defendant is detained in jail or subject to conditions of release on the current charge.” (66 P.3d at 624)
“Consistency and common sense dictate that when CrR 3.3(c)(2)(ii) directs that 'time elapsed in district court' commences with the filing of the current complaint if the defendant is 'detained in jail,' the rule means detained on the current charge and not detained on an unrelated charge.” (66 P.3d at 623)
Factual background
State filed complaint for residential burglary in Spokane County District Court while Hardesty was in jail in Okanogan County on unrelated charge. Arrest warrant was issued and served two months later. After arraignment in superior court, Hardesty moved to dismiss for speedy trial violation, arguing 'time elapsed in district court' commenced when complaint was filed because he was 'detained in jail.'
Procedural history
State filed complaint for residential burglary in district court. Hardesty was in jail in Okanogan County on unrelated charge. State later filed information in superior court. Hardesty moved to dismiss for speedy trial violation. Trial court denied motion. Court of Appeals reversed, holding defendant was 'detained in jail' for purposes of rule. State petitioned for review.
Remand instructions
Remand to Court of Appeals to address issues of permitting Hardesty to appear pro se at trial as well as his pro se timeliness arguments