Chief Civil Judge
James
Doerty
ROGER W. KNIGHT, )
)
plaintiff, )
) REPLY TO
STATE'S RESPONSE AND
v. )
OPPOSITION TO PETITIONER'S
)
PETITION AND APPLICATION FOR
STATE OF WASHINGTON, KING )
WRIT OF PROHIBITION
DIVISION, the
Honorable BARBARA )
LOUISE LINDE, in her capacity as Judge )
of the King County District Court,
West )
Division,
NORM MALENG,
Prosecutor, and
KATHRYN Y. KIM, )
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, )
)
defendants. )
____________________________________)
Comes now ROGER W. KNIGHT, plaintiff, to reply to the
State's Response and Opposition to Petitioner's Petition and Application for
Writ of Prohibition (State's Response II).
The
sole defense presented by the State is that Mr. Knight has not presented the
speedy trial issue before the District Court.
Such is not necessary for a writ of prohibition.
RCW
7.16.300 reads:
It may be issued by any court, except district or municipal courts, to an inferior tribunal, or to a corporation, board or person, in all cases where there is not a plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. It is issued upon affidavit, on the application of the person beneficially interested.
All that is required is that there is not a plain,
speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. This is already found in the case of CrR 3.3 and CrRLJ 3.3 speedy trial
rule violations,
Butts v. Heller,
(1993) 69
On
Therefore,
if Mr. Knight brings a motion to dismiss on the speedy trial issue as pled
herein, and the District Court denies it, there will be no time for
this Court
to then entertain this matter and grant the writ before the trial. If
Ms. Jennifer Worley or another deputy
prosecuting attorney decides against moving to dismiss the charge, whether
based on a re-analysis of City of Redmond
v. Moore, (June 3, 2004) ____ Wash. 2d. ____ or
for another reason, and the District Court denies a motion to dismiss on the basis
of
The
State pleads:
The
notice to appear for arraignment, which was sent to Mr. Knight and returned to
the court is part of the
trial court's file. However, it is not part of the record for
review. Thus we have no way of knowing
what address the notice was sent to and whether the
court used the defendant's
address of record.
State's Response II page 2 lines 17-21.
There
are two possible remedies for this situation.
The state is free to obtain from the
District Court's record the
documents related to the mailing of the notice of arraignment and present such
to this Court in response to the
Order to Show Cause. Or this Court, if it deems it necessary for
adjudication on this point, may issue a writ of certiorari as provided by
RCW
7.16.030-140.
But
such is not necessary. Regardless of
what address was used to mail the notice of arraignment, there is no dispute
that the State's representative,
Jennifer Sandvik,
was in the same courtroom as Mr. Knight and had an opportunity to inform Mr.
Knight of the arraignment and the criminal case. She did not.
The State thus cannot be said to have exercised due diligence as
required by State v. Austin, (2003)
119
Furthermore,
the District Court had a responsibility to consider the long delay between the
filing of the charge and the actual notice to Mr. Knight sua sponte, under
CrCLJ 3.3(a):
It 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.
Where
the facts set forth by an applicant for writ of prohibition are not controverted, and such facts are sufficient to authorize a
writ of prohibition, the writ must be issued.
State v. Lewis,
(1973) 9
Rem. Rev. Stat., § 1023 [P.P.C. § 16-21], provides that, if no
answer be made to an application for a writ of prohibition, "the case must
be heard on the papers of the applicant." In
State
ex rel. State Ins. Co. v. Superior Court, 14
Wash. 203, 44 Pac. 131, we decided that, if a respondent did not answer in the
manner required by statute, the writ must issue if the facts set up in the application were sufficient
to authorize it.
The citation is for
State ex rel. State Ins. Co. v. Superior Court, (1896) 14
On the return of the alternative, or the day on which the application for the writ is noticed, the party on whom the writ or notice has been served may show cause by answer, under oath, made in the same manner as an answer to a complaint in a civil action.
Remington
Revised Statute §1023, which is also Laws 1895 chapter 65 §25, is presently
codified as
RCW 7.16.250. It to is unchanged since 1895.
It reads:
If no answer be made, the case must be heard on the papers of the applicant. If the answer raises only questions of law, or puts in issue immaterial statements not affecting the substantial rights of the party, the court must proceed to hear or fix a day for hearing the argument of the case.
Because
the State has not controverted any of the facts as
set forth by Mr. Knight, and as these facts authorize a writ of prohibition,
the prohibition must issue and the District Court should be restrained from
proceeding with the trial.
CONCLUSION
For
the reasons stated herein, the writ of prohibition should be granted
restraining the District Court from proceedings with the trial in State v. Knight,
King County District
Court No. C438381.
PROPOSED
WRIT
A copy of the proposed Writ is provided hereto.
Respectfully submitted this 14th day of June, 2004.
__________________________
Roger W. Knight, pro se
If the back button does not take you there, click Home to go to the Index page of this Antipeonage Act Website, click Enemies for the main Enemies page, click Letters for the Letters page, and click Allies for the Allies page. Click CQ54646KC to get to the main page for this case. Or you can use the Antipeonage Act Site Map.