State Of Washington v. Andrew Lingle, 48428-5

Defendant Andrew Lingle was charged with multiple assaults; the State later severed one second-degree assault count (count 1) and later refiled it under a new cause number with an added third-degree assault count after acquittal on the other counts.
Lingle signed a written waiver of speedy trial on September 18, 2015 that lacked an explicit commencement date but stated consent to a trial date by December 17, 2015.
The trial court set December 14, 2015 as the trial date for the severed count; Lingle was out of custody during this period.
After acquittal on the other counts, the State filed the new information on December 17, 2015; Lingle moved to dismiss for violation of CrR 3.3 time-for-trial rules.
The trial court treated the signed waiver date as the commencement date, concluded Lingle’s speedy-trial period expired on December 17, 2015, and dismissed the charges with prejudice; the State appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether CrR 3.3(c)(2)(i) commencement date is the waiver filing/signature date when no date is specified	State: where waiver lacks a commencement date the court must use the trial date set by the court (reset time to trial date)	Lingle: the waiver filing/signature date is the commencement date (relying on Nelson)	Court reversed dismissal: when waiver omits a date, CrR 3.3(c)(2)(i) sets commencement as the trial date contemporaneously or subsequently set by the court (here Dec 14, 2015)
Whether the State is equitably estopped from asserting the correct rule on appeal	State: not estopped; preserved objection below	Lingle: estoppel applies because of State representations/actions	Court rejected estoppel: application disfavored against government and State preserved its claim

State v. Nelson, 131 Wn. App. 108, 125 P.3d 1008 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006) (discussed prior interpretation of waiver filing and commencement date)
State v. Chhom, 162 Wn.2d 451, 173 P.3d 234 (Wash. 2007) (court rules interpreted like statutes)
State v. Keller, 143 Wn.2d 267, 19 P.3d 1030 (Wash. 2001) (plain-language statutory interpretation)
State v. Armendariz, 160 Wn.2d 106, 156 P.3d 201 (Wash. 2007) (enforce unambiguous statutory language)
State v. Hamilton, 121 Wn. App. 633, 90 P.3d 69 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004) (pre-2003 rule practice on waivers without express expiration)
State v. Bartlett, 56 Wn. App. 77, 782 P.2d 570 (Wash. Ct. App. 1989) (same)
State v. Pomeroy, 18 Wn. App. 837, 573 P.2d 805 (Wash. Ct. App. 1977) (same)
State v. Olmos, 129 Wn. App. 750, 120 P.3d 139 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005) (amendments to CrR 3.3 superseded constructive commencement principles)
State v. Yates, 161 Wn.2d 714, 168 P.3d 359 (Wash. 2007) (elements and disfavor of equitable estoppel against government)
In re Estate of Hambleton, 181 Wn.2d 802, 335 P.3d 398 (Wash. 2014) (equitable estoppel application and disfavor against government)
City of Seattle v. Williams, 128 Wn.2d 341, 908 P.2d 359 (Wash. 1996) (appellate courts should avoid unnecessary constitutional rulings)