Appeal from Superior Court of King County. Docket No: 95-2-31762-6. Date filed: 03/13/96. Judge signing: Hon. Deborah D. Fleck.
Petition for Review Denied July 8, 1997,
Authored by William W. Baker. Concurring: Faye C. Kennedy, Mary K. Becker
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Baker
BAKER, C.J. - The City of Seattle, appearing for the Seattle Municipal Court and Judge Ron A. Mamiya (SMC), asks us to examine whether a criminal defendant waives the right to object to a speedy trial violation by failing to object within ten days of the trial setting when defense counsel knew or should have known of the violation when the trial date was set. We answer the question in the affirmative and, therefore, hold that the trial court erred in issuing a writ of prohibition terminating the driving while intoxicated (DWI) proceedings against Swanson. We reverse and remand for further proceedings. *fn1
On August 5, 1995, Swanson was arrested for DWI. Swanson did not receive a citation for DWI, nor was one filed with the court. On August 6 Swanson was released on personal recognizance before an in-custody arraignment occurred. He was released on his promise to appear at a September 19 intake hearing.
On August 21 Swanson's counsel filed a special notice of appearance, contesting jurisdiction and reserving the right to raise other issues. On August 23 the City filed a complaint charging Swanson with DWI.
On September 19 Swanson appeared at the intake hearing with counsel. On Swanson's intake paperwork, he indicated that he did not waive arraignment. He did not, however, formally ask to be arraigned or object to the intake hearing being used as the arraignment date. At some point during the intake hearing, Swanson was given a discovery packet containing the criminal citation and the complaint.
On October 18 the court conducted a pretrial hearing and denied Swanson's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Trial was set for December 5. Swanson did not object to the trial date.
On November 9 Swanson moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and objected to the arraignment date and trial setting. Swanson's counsel claimed that he filed the objections within ten days of discovering the speedy trial issue. On November 30 the trial court denied Swanson's motion, ruling that the intake hearing on September 19 was the arraignment and that Swanson's November 9 objection to the arraignment was not timely.
Swanson sought a writ of prohibition from the King County Superior Court staying further SMC proceedings against him and to show cause why further proceedings should not be dismissed. The superior court found that no arraignment took place on September 19, concluded that speedy trial time had run, and issued a writ of prohibition directing SMC to cease proceedings against Swanson, other than dismissal.
The City moved for reconsideration, arguing that Swanson waived any objection to the trial date by not making it within ten days of the trial setting. The City conceded that SMC erred in setting the arraignment date on September 19 and that Swanson's trial should have been held by November 19; however, it maintained that this error was waived because Swanson failed to object within ten days of the trial setting.
Swanson responded, arguing that the City could not raise the issue of whether he waived his objection to the speedy trial violation for the first time on reconsideration. Swanson also maintained that he did not waive his objection to the speedy trial violation because he was only required to object to the trial setting within ten days if he was aware of the speedy trial violation and he ...