State v. Chavez-Romero, 285 P.3d 195

February 22, 2009 911 hang-up in Pasco led police to Chavez-Romero, 21, with a 13-year-old girl; charged with second degree rape of a child.
April 21, 2009 pretrial: State sought release on own recognizance and a 90-day extension, aware of potential ICE detention.
Court released Chavez-Romero, who was then detained by ICE and missed the next court date; trial date reset.
April 28 pretrial: Chavez-Romero failed to appear due to federal detention; bench warrant issued and trial date struck.
May 15–19: Chavez-Romero reappeared; bail reinstated; trial dates reset to July 15; he objected and moved to dismiss under CrR 3.3.
June 30 trial court denied speedy-trial motion; July 22 trial commenced and July 24 jury convicted Chavez-Romero of third degree rape of a child; conviction dismissed with prejudice on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether release to extend CrR 3.3 time was proper.	Chavez-Romero argues release violated CrR 3.3 by effectively resetting outside the time.	State contends release to extend time is permissible under CrR 3.3(b)(3).	No; the majority held the clock was not properly reset to satisfy CrR 3.3 in this context.
Whether time detained in federal custody is excluded from CrR 3.3 calculations.	CrR 3.3(e)(6) excludes time in federal custody from the trial-time calculation.	State argued the reset was independent of custody; no error in extending time.	Yes; CrR 3.3(e)(6) excludes the period of federal detention from the speedy-trial calculation.
Whether Chavez-Romero sufficiently objected to the revised trial date to preserve error.	Oral objection and a written motion to dismiss alerted the court to a CrR 3.3 violation.	Objection procedures were not properly followed to preserve the issue.	Sufficient objection; waiver did not bar review under CrR 3.3(d)(3) and (d)(4).
Whether the overall handling violated CrR 3.3 and required dismissal with prejudice.	The State and court mismanaged the timeline, leading to a denial of timely trial.	Time management complied with rule, or any delay was properly tolled.	Yes; the conviction was dismissed with prejudice for failing to commence trial within CrR 3.3.

State v. George, 160 Wn.2d 727 (2007) (duty of due diligence; CrR 3.3(e)(2) exclusion; reset provisions)
State v. Carson, 128 Wn.2d 805 (1996) (timeliness objections; timely motion required to fix date)
State v. Rose, 110 Wn. App. 878 (2002) (timeliness objections; proper motion to set date within limits)
State v. Austin, 59 Wn. App. 186 (1990) (timeliness objections; invalid late requests)
State v. Harris, 130 Wn.2d 35 (1996) (requirement of timely objection; motion to set date within limits)
State v. Farnsworth, 133 Wn. App. 1 (2006) (objection sufficiency under CrR 3.3(d)(3))
State v. Wilks, 85 Wn. App. 303 (1997) (due diligence concept in speedy-trial context)