¶1(concurring in part, dissenting in part) — I agree with all of the majority opinion, except that section addressing the defendants' right to a speedy trial. I would hold the defendants were denied a speedy trial under CrR 3.3.
¶2CrR 3.3(i) provides:
(i) Dismissal With Prejudice. A criminal charge not brought to trial within the time period provided by this rule shall be dismissed with prejudice.
¶3The time period provided in the rule for defendants, in the position of Ramil and Guloy, who are not released from jail pending trial, is not later than 60 days after the date of arraignment. CrR 3.3(c)(1). As directed in CrR 3.3(a), " [i]t shall be the responsibility of the court to ensure a trial in accordance with this rule to each person charged with having committed a crime."
¶4I agree with the majority that the 60-day period started on June 10, 1981. Majority opinion, at 428. However, even using this date, the defendants were not brought to trial within 60 days. The trial court was not faced with a dilemma. On July 30, defendant Guloy sought a 5-day continuance. Had the requested 5-day continuance been granted, both defendants would have been brought to trial within the applicable 60-day speedy trial rule. Nothing in the record explains why a request for a 5-day continuance became an order for an 11-day continuance. The fact that it did violates the speedy trial rule.
¶5I dissent from this section.