State v. Pichora

Court of Appeals of Washington

State v. Pichora

645 P.2d 1103, 32 Wash. App. 81, 1982 Wash. App. LEXIS 2828

CourtCourt of Appeals of Washington

DecidedApril 12, 1982

DocketNos. 9385-1-I; 9456-4-I; 9484-0-I; 9614-1-I; 9684-2-I

StatusPublished

This text of 645 P.2d 1103 (State v. Pichora) 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. Pichora, 645 P.2d 1103, 32 Wash. App. 81, 1982 Wash. App. LEXIS 2828 (Wash. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinions

Corbett, J.

The State appeals the dismissal of five negligent homicide prosecutions for violation of former CrR 3.3, the speedy trial rule.

All of the defendants would have been brought to trial pursuant to the rule if the superior court judges had not given retroactive effect to the holding of State v. Edwards, 94 Wn.2d 208, 616 P.2d 620 (1980). This court has since held that the rule is to be strictly interpreted and modification of the rule by the Edwards decision is to be given prospective application. State v. Darden, 30 Wn. App. 460, 465, 635 P.2d 760 (1981), review granted, 96 Wn.2d 1025 (1982); State v. Fry, 30 Wn. App. 638, 643, 638 P.2d 585 (1981); State v. Schmidt, 30 Wn. App. 887, 893-98, 639 P.2d 754 (1982); State v. Kray, 31 Wn. App. 388, 389, 641 P.2d 1210 (1982). Dismissal of these prosecutions was error.

The defendant Blum contends further that the charges against him were properly dismissed for the additional reason that no preliminary hearing was held, nor does the record reflect a valid waiver of preliminary hearing. The district court minute entry for February 8, 1980, was:

Defendant and attorney not in court. By previous agreement with State — stipulate as to -facts. By agreement— boundover. Pr'ed.

A Seattle district court judge testified in the superior court that the preliminary hearing was waived. The Superior [83]*83Court found on this record that the preliminary hearing had been waived. The parties' stipulation as to the facts was tantamount to the holding of a preliminary hearing for the purposes of CrR 3.3. State v. Christofferson, 28 Wn. App. 696, 698, 626 P.2d 36 (1981). The applicable event for calculating time limits was thus the date of bindover, February 8, 1980. The scheduled trial date would, therefore, have complied with the rule.

Each case is reversed and remanded for trial.

Callow, J., concurs.

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

Corbett, J.

The State appeals the dismissal of five negligent homicide prosecutions for violation of former CrR 3.3, the speedy trial rule.

All of the defendants would have been brought to trial pursuant to the rule if the superior court judges had not given retroactive effect to the holding of State v. Edwards, 94 Wn.2d 208, 616 P.2d 620 (1980). This court has since held that the rule is to be strictly interpreted and modification of the rule by the Edwards decision is to be given prospective application. State v. Darden, 30 Wn. App. 460, 465, 635 P.2d 760 (1981), review granted, 96 Wn.2d 1025 (1982); State v. Fry, 30 Wn. App. 638, 643, 638 P.2d 585 (1981); State v. Schmidt, 30 Wn. App. 887, 893-98, 639 P.2d 754 (1982); State v. Kray, 31 Wn. App. 388, 389, 641 P.2d 1210 (1982). Dismissal of these prosecutions was error.

The defendant Blum contends further that the charges against him were properly dismissed for the additional reason that no preliminary hearing was held, nor does the record reflect a valid waiver of preliminary hearing. The district court minute entry for February 8, 1980, was:

Defendant and attorney not in court. By previous agreement with State — stipulate as to -facts. By agreement— boundover. Pr'ed.

A Seattle district court judge testified in the superior court that the preliminary hearing was waived. The Superior [83]*83Court found on this record that the preliminary hearing had been waived. The parties' stipulation as to the facts was tantamount to the holding of a preliminary hearing for the purposes of CrR 3.3. State v. Christofferson, 28 Wn. App. 696, 698, 626 P.2d 36 (1981). The applicable event for calculating time limits was thus the date of bindover, February 8, 1980. The scheduled trial date would, therefore, have complied with the rule.

Each case is reversed and remanded for trial.

Callow, J., concurs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

645 P.2d 1103, 32 Wash. App. 81, 1982 Wash. App. LEXIS 2828, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-pichora-washctapp-1982.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack