From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Ross

The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division Two
Dec 10, 1999
990 P.2d 962 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999)

Opinion

No. 22759-2-II.

December 10, 1999


Prior report: 98 Wn. App. 1, 981 P.2d 888.


ORDER AMENDING OPINION

Respondent, State of Washington, moves the court for reconsideration or for clarification of its published opinion filed on July 30, 1999. The court, having reviewed the motion and its opinion, and the record herein, it is hereby

ORDERED that the opinion is amended as follows:

1. In footnote 2, the citation for Fladebo, is corrected to 113 Wn.2d at 394, 779 P.2d 707.

2. The last paragraph on page 5 [Second column, line 4 from bottom of page 890 of 981 P.2d] of the opinion is deleted. The following paragraph is inserted in its place:

If the State demonstrates that it acted in good faith and with due diligence and its reasons were understandable and justified, the speedy trial period accrues from the date of timely arraignment — in this case, September 25, 1997. CrR 3.3(c)(1). But if the trial court finds that the State did not act in good faith or with due diligence, that is, failed to demonstrate that its reasons for the delayed methamphetamine charge were understandable and justified, the speedy trial period for the later filed charge accrues from the time that the defendant is held to answer for any charge with respect to the underlying criminal episode.3 Peterson, 90 Wn.2d at 431, 585 P.2d 66.

Accordingly, it is hereby

SO ORDERED.

We concur: MORGAN, P.J., and SEINFELD, J.


Summaries of

State v. Ross

The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division Two
Dec 10, 1999
990 P.2d 962 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999)
Case details for

State v. Ross

Case Details

Full title:STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Otto Allen ROSS, Jr., Appellant

Court:The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division Two

Date published: Dec 10, 1999

Citations

990 P.2d 962 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999)