State v. Kray

641 P.2d 1210, 31 Wash. App. 388, 1982 Wash. App. LEXIS 2529
CourtCourt of Appeals of Washington
DecidedMarch 8, 1982
Docket8407-1-I
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 641 P.2d 1210 (State v. Kray) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. Kray, 641 P.2d 1210, 31 Wash. App. 388, 1982 Wash. App. LEXIS 2529 (Wash. Ct. App. 1982).

Opinions

Williams, J.

The State appeals dismissal of charges against defendants Kray, Mendoza, and Ramsey because they were not prosecuted within the speedy trial time limits of CrR 3.3(b)(1) as interpreted in State v. Edwards, 94 Wn.2d 208, 616 P.2d 620 (1980). We reverse.

None of these defendants were tried or given a preliminary hearing within 100 days of arrest and release. All trial dates were set within 90 days following defendants' bind-over from district to superior court. The criminal rules in effect at the time of these arrests provided:

A defendant who is released from custody shall be brought to trial within 90 days of the applicable event set forth in subsection (b)(1).

CrR 3.3(b)(3).

The time limits set forth in subsections (b)(2) and (b)(3) shall commence to run from the date: (a) of the order binding the defendant over to the superior court following a preliminary hearing pursuant to JCrR 2.03 or (b) of the tenth day following the defendant's arrest in the event a preliminary hearing is not held or the charge is initially filed in the superior court.

CrR 3.3(b)(1). The sole issue in this case is whether the Supreme Court's interpretation of CrR 3.3 in State v. Edwards, supra applies retroactively, requiring dismissal of all cases not tried within 100 days of arrest.

This court recently decided this issue in the case of State v. Darden, 30 Wn. App. 460, 635 P.2d 760 (1981). We agree with the reasoning in that case and hold State v. Edwards will be given prospective application.

The dismissals are reversed and the cases remanded for trial.

Corbett, J., concurs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State v. Grier
168 Wash. App. 635 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 2012)
In Re Audett
147 P.3d 982 (Washington Supreme Court, 2006)
State v. Audett
158 Wash. 2d 712 (Washington Supreme Court, 2006)
State v. Darden
663 P.2d 1352 (Washington Supreme Court, 1983)
State v. Jordan
646 P.2d 781 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 1982)
State v. Pichora
645 P.2d 1103 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 1982)
State v. Middleton
645 P.2d 710 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 1982)
State v. Kray
641 P.2d 1210 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
641 P.2d 1210, 31 Wash. App. 388, 1982 Wash. App. LEXIS 2529, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-kray-washctapp-1982.