*213DISSENTING OPINION OF
CRANDALL, CIRCUIT JUDGEI respectfully dissent.
I do not concur with the majority opinion that the Assignment Order does not provide a factual basis to establish exceptional circumstances. “ ‘Exceptional circumstances,’ like ‘good cause,’ is dependent on the facts of each case[,]” State v. Herrera, 63 Haw. 405, 629 P.2d 626 (1981), and, the findings of the trial court are not to be disturbed unless clearly erroneous. Id. In addition to the factors set forth in the Assignment Order as contributing to the backlog, the trial court also found, among other facts, that the number of cases awaiting trial had risen from 393 on October 31, 1990 to 624 cases awaiting trial or other disposition, on March 25, 1991.
A substantial increase in the number of murder, attempted murder and sexual assault filings, the scheduling of die trial in accordance with the priorities set forth in the Assignment Order and a more than 50% increase in the number of cases awaiting trial or other disposition in a five month period can reasonably be considered to be unique and nonrecurring events to support a finding of exceptional circumstances. As the court recognized in State v. Herrera, supra, the reviewing court must be “driven irrefragably to the conclusion that an objective review of the evidence would result in a different conclusion” in order to hold a finding of fact to be clearly erroneous. I am not so driven here and conclude that the findings of fact, therefore, are not clearly erroneous and the conclusion of the trial court that there was not a violation of HRPP Rule 48 should not be reversed. State v. Herrera, supra; State v. Lord, 63 Haw. 270, 625 P.2d 1038 (1981).
I would affirm the trial court’s denial of the motions to dismiss.