Legal Opinion

State v. Treat

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided December 18, 2001No. 19331-4-IIIPublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSweeney, J.

— We will impose a constructive arraignment date when a delay between charging and bringing a defendant before the court is both long and unnecessary. This is the Striker rule. State v. Striker, 87 Wn.2d 870, 557 P.2d 847 (1976). The requirements of Striker apply, however, only when a defendant is amenable to service. And a defendant is not amenable to service if the defendant is a resident of another state. Here, Everett Treat lived in Idaho, although he frequently worked in Washington. The question before us is whether his frequent sojourns into Washington are sufficient to invoke the…

2Cases cited28 opinions

  1. State v. StrikerWashington Supreme Court · 1976
  2. State v. GreenwoodWashington Supreme Court · 1993
  3. State v. WaltonCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1992
  4. State v. WickeWashington Supreme Court · 1979
  5. State v. CarpenterWashington Supreme Court · 1980

23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. United States v. Nobel J. KellyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2005
  2. State v. Ramirez-DominguezCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2007
  3. State v. Ramirez-DominguezCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2007
  4. State v. TreatCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2001
  5. State v. BUDIKCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2010

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API