State v. Chichester
Court of Appeals of Washington
1Opinion of the CourtBecker, J.
¶1 When Ronald Chichester appeared for his confirmed trial date, the State was not ready to try the case. The court denied the State’s motion for a continuance and dismissed the case. Dismissal of a criminal prosecution is a remedy of last resort. But where the trial court acts within its discretion to deny a continuance and the State fails to propose an alternative to dismissal, the court’s ruling rests on tenable grounds.
*449FACTS
¶2 The State charged respondent Ronald Chichester with driving under the influence in 2003. The case was filed and docketed in the East Division of King County…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited13 opinions
- State v. BlackwellWashington Supreme Court · 1993
- State v. DowningWashington Supreme Court · 2004
- State v. DowningWashington Supreme Court · 2004
- State v. RaperCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1987
- State v. ShermanCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1990
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- State v. BrooksCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2009
- State of Washington v. Mahadi H. AljaffarCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2017
- City of Kent v. SandhuCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2011
- City of Kent v. SandhuCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2011
- City of Seattle v. ClewisCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2011
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.