State v. Detrick, Nos. 39615-3-

CourtCourt of Appeals of Washington
Writing for the CourtKENNEDY; Here
Citation90 Wn.App. 939,954 P.2d 949
PartiesSTATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Jessica Ann DETRICK, Appellant. STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Jason M. BARNES, Appellant. STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Paul ESTRADA, Appellant.
Docket Number39643-9-,Nos. 39615-3-,39800-8-I
Decision Date27 April 1998

Page 939

90 Wn.App. 939
954 P.2d 949
STATE of Washington, Respondent,
v.
Jessica Ann DETRICK, Appellant.
STATE of Washington, Respondent,
v.
Jason M. BARNES, Appellant.
STATE of Washington, Respondent,
v.
Paul ESTRADA, Appellant.
Nos. 39615-3-I, 39643-9-I, 39800-8-I.
Court of Appeals of Washington,
Division 1.
April 27, 1998.

[954 P.2d 950]

Page 940

Douglas J. Ende, Ende, Subin & Philip, Vashon, Shauna C. O'Connor, Lisa D. Ridgedale for Washington Appellate Project, Nielsen, Broman & Associates Pllc, Washington Appellate Project, Seattle, for Appellants.

Deborah A. Dwyer, Prosecuting Attorney King County, Seattle, for Respondent.

[954 P.2d 951] KENNEDY, Chief Judge.

The juvenile court adjudged Jessica Detrick, Jason Barnes, and Paul Estrada guilty of first degree robbery. They appeal, contending that Judge Bobbe J. Bridge erred by imputing Detrick's affidavit of prejudice, which was filed with respect to the superior court judge initially scheduled to hear the case, to Barnes and Estrada,

Page 941

and by extending the time for their consolidated adjudicatory hearing past the speedy hearing requirements ofJuCR 7.8(b). In addition, Detrick, Barnes, and Estrada contend that Judge Michael J. Fox erred under JuCR 7.8(g) by denying their motion to dismiss the robbery charge with prejudice by reason of violation of their speedy hearing rights. 1

We hold that in a consolidated adjudicatory hearing an affidavit of prejudice filed by one juvenile respondent may properly be imputed to his or her co-respondents. And because CrR 3.3(d)--which extends the speedy trial period when a judge is disqualified--is not inconsistent with the juvenile rules, it applies to juvenile proceedings. Therefore, Judge Bridge properly extended the time for Detrick, Barnes, and Estrada's consolidated adjudicatory hearing and Judge Fox properly denied the motion to dismiss with prejudice. Accordingly, we affirm.

FACTS

Armed with a baseball bat and a gardening tool, Barnes and Estrada, both age 16, robbed a 7-Eleven store on June 25, 1996. Detrick, also age 16, observed the robbery and stood guard. Barnes beat the cashier with the bat while Estrada watched. Barnes and Estrada then took cigarette cartons and the cash register, which they were unable to open, and left the store.

Detrick, Barnes, and Estrada were identified from the store's video surveillance tape. Each was charged by information with first degree robbery and their hearings were consolidated under JuCR 7.9(b). On September 18, 1996, Detrick filed an affidavit of prejudice against the judge who was scheduled to hear the case on that day, and the State moved for a continuance because its primary investigating

Page 942

witness was unavailable. The speedy hearing expiration date was September 25, 1996, but no other judge was available to hear the consolidated cases within that period. Applying CrR 3.3, Judge Bridge concluded that Detrick's affidavit of prejudice extended the time for the consolidated hearing as to all three juveniles. Accordingly, she reset the hearing for October 3, 1996, eight days beyond the then-pending speedy hearing expiration date. Judge Bridge declined to rule on the State's motion to continue. 2

On the day of the adjudicatory hearing, the juveniles argued to Judge Fox that their hearing was not held within the time limits of JuCR 7.8. They reasoned that CrR 3.3(d)(6), the Superior Court provision upon which Judge Bridge relied, does not apply to juveniles. Accordingly, they moved to dismiss the informations with prejudice under JuCR 7.8(g). Judge Fox denied this motion and proceeded with the hearing. He found the juveniles guilty of first degree robbery and sentenced them within the standard range. Detrick, Barnes, and Estrada appeal.

DISCUSSION

I. Affidavit of Prejudice

"No judge of a superior court ... shall sit to hear or try any action or proceeding when it [is] established ... that said judge is prejudiced[.]" RCW 4.12.040. Such prejudice is established upon a party's timely filing of a motion and affidavit of prejudice against the judge. State v. Dennison, 115 Wash.2d 609, 620, 801 P.2d 193 (1990); RCW 4.12.050. Upon such a filing in Washington, [954 P.2d 952] the party has a peremptory right to a change of judge; there is no question of fact or discretion. Dennison, 115 Wash.2d at 620, 801 P.2d 193; Hanno v. Neptune Orient Lines, Ltd., 67 Wash.App. 681, 683, 838 P.2d 1144 (1992). A party is entitled to only one change of judge as a matter of right. RCW 4.12.050. Yet, if the party shows

Page 943

actual prejudice, the court must consider a motion for disqualification even if the statutory right has been exhausted. State v. Palmer, 5 Wash.App. 405, 411-12, 487 P.2d 627 (1971). These rules apply to superior court judges sitting in juvenile court. State v. Espinoza, 112 Wash.2d 819, 823, 774 P.2d 1177 (1989).

Here, Judge Bridge, relying upon LaMon v. Butler, 112 Wash.2d 193, 770 P.2d 1027 (1989), considered Detrick's affidavit of prejudice to be "one for all" co-respondents. Report of Proceedings (9/18/96) at 37. In LaMon, our Supreme Court held that co-plaintiffs and co-defendants in a civil case are limited to the filing of a single affidavit. LaMon, 112 Wash.2d at 202-04, 770 P.2d 1027. Accordingly, Judge Bridge imputed...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 practice notes
  • IN RE THE WELFARE OF M.I.S. v. A.S., NO. 41000-8-I
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Washington
    • May 24, 1999
    ...aff'd, 119 Wn.2d 711, 837 P.2d 599 (1992). "A party is entitled to only one change of Judge as a matter of right." State v. Detrick, 90 Wn. App. 939, 942-43, 954 P.2d 949 (1998). After this statutory right is exhausted, a party must demonstrate actual prejudice to disqualify a subsequently ......
  • State v. Ortiz-Lopez, 38558-9-II
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Washington
    • June 28, 2011
    ...this document is not part of the record, we cannot consider Ortiz-Lopez's assertions about the order's contents. State v. Detrick, 90 Wn.App. 939, 941 n. 1, 954 P.2d 949 (1998) (refusing to review claimed error in denying motion to sever where motion was not included in record); State v. Ga......
  • State v. Ortiz-Lopez, No. 38558-9-II
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Washington
    • June 28, 2011
    ...this document is not part of the record, we cannot consider Ortiz-Lopez's assertions about the order's contents. State v. Detrick, 90 Wn. App. 939, 941 n. 1, 954 P.2d 949 (1998) (refusing to review claimed error in denying motion to sever where motion was not included in record); State v. G......
  • State v. Wade, No. 67459-1
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • May 5, 1999
    ...for separate hearing held on that issue), review denied, 108 Wash.2d 1027 (1987); State v. Detrick, 90 Wash.App. 939, 941 n. 1, 954 P.2d 949 (1998) (refusing to review claimed error in denying motion to sever where motion was not included in record); State v. Garcia, 45 Wash.App. 132, 140, ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 cases
  • IN RE THE WELFARE OF M.I.S. v. A.S., NO. 41000-8-I
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Washington
    • May 24, 1999
    ...aff'd, 119 Wn.2d 711, 837 P.2d 599 (1992). "A party is entitled to only one change of Judge as a matter of right." State v. Detrick, 90 Wn. App. 939, 942-43, 954 P.2d 949 (1998). After this statutory right is exhausted, a party must demonstrate actual prejudice to disqualify a subsequently ......
  • State v. Ortiz-Lopez, 38558-9-II
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Washington
    • June 28, 2011
    ...this document is not part of the record, we cannot consider Ortiz-Lopez's assertions about the order's contents. State v. Detrick, 90 Wn.App. 939, 941 n. 1, 954 P.2d 949 (1998) (refusing to review claimed error in denying motion to sever where motion was not included in record); State v. Ga......
  • State v. Ortiz-Lopez, No. 38558-9-II
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Washington
    • June 28, 2011
    ...this document is not part of the record, we cannot consider Ortiz-Lopez's assertions about the order's contents. State v. Detrick, 90 Wn. App. 939, 941 n. 1, 954 P.2d 949 (1998) (refusing to review claimed error in denying motion to sever where motion was not included in record); State v. G......
  • State v. Wade, No. 67459-1
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • May 5, 1999
    ...for separate hearing held on that issue), review denied, 108 Wash.2d 1027 (1987); State v. Detrick, 90 Wash.App. 939, 941 n. 1, 954 P.2d 949 (1998) (refusing to review claimed error in denying motion to sever where motion was not included in record); State v. Garcia, 45 Wash.App. 132, 140, ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT