State v. Flinn
Decision Date | 24 November 2003 |
Docket Number | No. 51473-3-I.,51473-3-I. |
Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
Parties | STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Anthony Oren FLINN, Appellant. |
Susan Wilk, Wash. App. Project, Seattle, for Appellant.
Deric Martin, King County Prosecuting Atty., Seattle, for Respondent.
Anthony Flinn appeals his conviction for possession of an incendiary device, contending that the State was required to prove that he designed the device for the purpose of willful destruction. He also contends that the trial court violated his right to a speedy trial under CrR 3.3 by considering the dates of the fall judicial conference in rescheduling the trial, and should have dismissed the case for prosecutorial mismanagement under CrR 8.3(b). We reject these contentions and affirm the conviction.
In the early morning hours of May 6, 2002, Seattle Police responded to a report of a burglar alarm at the Meany Middle School Complex. They arrived to find Anthony Flinn on the roof of the school, pacing back and forth and shouting obscenities. Officers could hear Flinn breaking fixtures and equipment on the roof and throwing things. Officer Anderson identified himself as a police officer, and Flinn responded with an epithet. A school janitor arrived and let the officers into the school, where they gained access to the roof and arrested Flinn. He told the officers that certain forces were after him and that they were going to shoot him. And he said that he had made a Molotov cocktail. The officers recovered a gasoline-filled beer bottle wrapped in a red sock and capped with a wick-like cloth from the roof of the school.
At the police station, Flinn said that he had ingested a large amount of methamphetamines, and that he had been chased all night by "forces" that had been firing shots at him. Because he wanted to show his pursuers that he was "serious" he made several Molotov cocktails. Police subsequently found a second Molotov cocktail in the backyard of a residence located near the school, and the broken remnants of two more — one on the roof where Flinn had been captured, and another that had been thrown from the roof through a window of the school.
The State charged Flinn with attempted arson in the second degree, possession of an incendiary device, and malicious mischief in the first degree. Flinn was arraigned on May 21, 2002, and the matter was set for trial on July 18, 2002.
On July 5, 2002, the defense sought and obtained a continuance to August 12, 2002, to obtain a psychological evaluation of Flinn. Flinn waived speedy trial until August 14, 2002. On August 2, 2002, the defense moved for a second continuance, in that more time was needed to prepare a mental defense to the charges. On August 21, 2002, the defense provided the State with notice of intent to assert a diminished capacity defense, and a copy of a report written by Dr. Kenneth Muscatel. The defense sought an additional continuance to September, 9, 2002, and Flinn again waived speedy trial to that date.
Dr. Muscatel's report did not include a curriculum vitae or a list of materials, such as mental health records and psychological tests or other diagnostic tools upon which the doctor had relied in reaching his opinion that Flinn was suffering from drug-induced psychosis at the time of the offenses. The prosecutor repeatedly tried to contact defense counsel to request these materials, but got no response, in that defense counsel was on vacation.
On September 9, 2002, the State filed a motion to compel discovery and sought a continuance to obtain the missing information, and to secure a rebuttal expert. The prosecutor requested two weeks in order to accomplish this.
Flinn objected to the State's request for continuance, and revealed for the first time that Dr. Muscatel had not contacted any of Flinn's prior mental health providers to obtain mental health records because there were none, had performed no diagnostic testing, and had relied only upon the police reports and his interview with Flinn in reaching his opinion. Flinn argued that the State had already had plenty of time to interview Dr. Muscatel and to get its own expert on board.
Criminal Presiding Judge Ramsdell found good cause to continue the trial, and expressed a desire "to keep [the case] on a short leash but not so short that [the parties would] have to come back again [to seek another continuance]." Clerk's Papers at 21. The court rescheduled the trial for October 15, 2002. When defense counsel asked if it could not be sooner than that, Judge Ramsdell indicated that he had been trying to work around the impending fall judicial conference set for early October that year.
Flinn subsequently waived his right to a jury trial and stipulated to a bench trial before Judge Alsdorf. That trial commenced on October 22, 2002. Flinn asked Judge Alsdorf to dismiss for violation of his CrR 3.3 speedy trial rights and for prosecutorial mismanagement under CrR 8.3(b), and the court denied the motion. After three days of trial, Judge Alsdorf acquitted Flinn of the attempted arson and malicious mischief charges, but found him guilty of possession of an incendiary device.
Judge Alsdorf entered the following findings of fact:, all of which are unchallenged on appeal:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Ober, No. 29050-2-II (consolidated with) (WA 7/13/2004)
...CrR 8.3(b) motion to dismiss. CrR 8.3(b) allows a court to dismiss a case for prosecutorial mismanagement. See State v. Flinn, 119 Wn. App. 232, 247, 80 P.3d 171 (2003). A defendant must show: (1) arbitrary action or government misconduct; and (2) prejudice affecting his right to a fair tri......
-
State v. Owens
...dismissal under CrR 8.3(b) is an extraordinary remedy used only in truly egregious cases." State v. Flinn, 119 Wn.App. 232, 247, 80 P.3d 171 (2003). And the defendant must show that actual prejudice, not merely speculative prejudice, affected his right to a fair trial. State v. Rohrich, 149......
-
State v. Stenson
... ... cert, denied, 135 S.Ct. 72 (2014). The defendant ... must make a clear showing that the trial court's basis ... for granting the continuance is '"manifestly ... unreasonable, or exercised on untenable grounds, or for ... untenable reasons.'" State v. Flinn, ... 154Wn.2d 193, 199, 110 P.3d 748 (2005) (internal quotation ... marks omitted) (quoting State v. Downing, 151 Wn.2d ... 265, 272, 87 P.3d 1169 (2004)). "In exercising its ... discretion to grant or deny a continuance, the trial court is ... to consider all ... ...
-
State v. Owens
...governmental misconduct, dismissal under CrR 8.3(b) is an extraordinary remedy used only in truly egregious cases." State v. Flinn, 119 Wn. App. 232, 247, 80 P.3d 171 (2003). And the defendant must show that actual prejudice, not merely speculative prejudice, affected his right to a fair tr......