State v. Kennedy
Decision Date | 28 June 2022 |
Docket Number | 55437-2-II |
Parties | STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. RUSSELL DEAN KENNEDY, Appellant. |
Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Russell Kennedy was charged with burglary, theft, and, eventually trespass. His trial had initially been set for December 2019 but the trial court continued the trial date twice so that the court could hear other cases. Then, on March 9, 2020 Kennedy's trial was continued a third time. After a series of emergency orders and other continuances, he went to trial in November 2020 and he was convicted of trespass. Kennedy appeals his conviction, arguing that the trial court's March 9, 2020 continuance violated his right to a speedy trial under CrR 3.3.
We hold that the trial court's March 9, 2020 continuance did not violate Kennedy's right to a speedy trial under CrR 3.3. Accordingly, we affirm Kennedy's conviction for first degree trespass.
Suppl. Verbatim Report of Proceedings (VRP) (Dec. 9, 2019) at 35-36. The court then set Kennedy's trial for January 13, 2020.
On January 13, the trial court again continued the date for Kennedy's trial:
The court will make a finding that this is a judicial district that has one judge, two courts between the two judicial districts. Skamania County does not have the facilities that are available to go ahead and handle a second jury trial in this matter. The court will make a finding that Mr. Curtis' matter is also scheduled for trial today, it is a sex offense that does go back to 2018, this is older than Mr. Kennedy's matter; in this matter it's a crime against [a] person as well. The court is gonna go ahead and grant one additional requested continuance in this matter. I will indicate I will not grant any additional request for a continuance in this matter . . . but it does find that it is necessary in the administration of justice to continue the matter over one more additional time, [and] that Mr. Kennedy will not be prejudiced in the presentation of his defense by the requested continuance in this matter here today.
Suppl. VRP at 29-30. The court set Kennedy's trial for February 10, 2020. When February 10 came, the court explained that its January 13 continuance allowed the court to reset the trial date, without granting an additional continuance, by March 11 and still be within Kennedy's speedy trial time.[2] Accordingly, the court reset Kennedy's trial for March 9, 2020.
Id. at 12-13. The court set Kennedy's trial for April 13, 2020 in a notice that contained no further explanation or findings regarding the continuance. After a series of emergency orders and other continuances, Kennedy's trial was further delayed. Eventually, Kennedy's case was joined with another, and the co-defendants were tried on November 9, 2020.[3]
The jury found Kennedy guilty of first degree trespass but found him not guilty as to the burglary and theft. Kennedy appeals his trespass conviction.
Kennedy argues that the trial court violated his right to a speedy trial under CrR 3.3 when it continued his trial on March 9 2020. We disagree.
Generally, a criminal defendant who is out of custody must be brought to trial within 90 days of arraignment. CrR 3.3(b)(2)(i), (c)(1). However, a trial court may reset a case outside the time for trial period due to "[u]navoidable or unforeseen circumstances affecting the time for trial beyond the control of the court or the parties." CrR 3.3(e)(8); State v. Kenyon, 167 Wn.2d 130, 136-37, 216 P.3d 1024 (2009). Continuances under CrR 3.3(e)(8) are excluded in computing the time for trial. The purpose of CrR 3.3 is to protect a defendant's right to a speedy trial. Kenyon, 167 Wn.2d at 136.
If a trial court continues a case due to unavoidable or unforeseen circumstances under CrR 3.3(e)(8)," 'the court must record details of the congestion, such as how many courtrooms were actually in use at the time of the continuance and the availability of visiting judges to hear criminal cases in unoccupied courtrooms.'" Kenyon, 167 Wn.2d at 137 (quoting State v. Flinn, 154 Wn.2d 193, 200, 110 P.3d 748 (2005)).
We review an alleged violation of the time for trial rules de novo, but we review a trial court's decision whether to grant or deny a continuance for an abuse of discretion. Id. at 135. "[W]e will not disturb the trial court's decision unless there is a clear showing it is 'manifestly unreasonable, or exercised on untenable grounds, or for untenable reasons.'" Id. (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Flinn, 154 Wn.2d at 199).
Here, Kennedy's case had been continued twice before due to unavoidable circumstances. specifically, on each occasion, his case had been set on the same date as an older, more serious case, and skamania County has the capacity to try only one jury trial at a time because it has only one courtroom and one judge. Kennedy does not challenge the continuances granted on those two earlier occasions. On March 9, 2020, the trial court again reset the case based on: (1) there being another criminal case involving an in-custody defendant charged with a serious violent felony that was also set for trial that day, and (2) the State's assertion that there were no available judges or courtrooms that could try a second criminal case in skamania County at the same time as the incustody case. Kennedy argues that the trial court erred in resetting his case to accommodate the other in-custody case on this occasion because it did not make an adequate record establishing that a continuance was required in the administration of justice.
In Kenyon, the defendant's trial was continued when one judge was on...
To continue reading
Request your trial