Th eState ’s pe tit ion fo r disc re tio na

ry review s tyle d App e lle ea s JOSE PH V I TAL , A/K /A 1 J OSEPH VOTTA. In order to be consistent with the cour t of appe als and c larify

the title of the c a s e , w e w i l lp r o c e e d

un d e r th en am eJ O S E P HV O T T A , A/K /AJ O S E P HV IT A L. 

## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS

OF TE XAS N O S. P D –1366- 08, 1367- 08, 1368- 08, 1369- 08

TH E ST A TE O F T EX A S

v . JO SE P H V O T T A , A / K / A JO SE P H V I T A L , A ppel l ee 1 ON S TATE ’ S PET I TI ON FOR DI S CRETI ON ARY REVI EW

FROM THE 1 3 TH CO URT O F AP PEALS

J ACK S ON CO UNTY M E Y E R S , J . , d eli v er ed th e o p inion for a u n a n im o u s C o u rt. O P I N I O N Ap p e l l e e , J o s e p h Vo t t a , wa s c h a r g e d wi t h t wo c o u n t s o f p o s s e s s i o n a n d t wo count s of bai l j um pi ng and fa i l ur e t o appea r . B eca us e he w as i ncar cer at ed i n a fe der al fac i l i t yw hi l e thes e cha r ges w er e pendi ng, he s oughta s peedydi s pos i t i on undert he I nt er s t at e A gr eementon D et ai ner s A ct( I A D A ) . W hen the St at e fa i l ed t o br i ng A ppel l eeVotta–Pag e 2

to trial w ith in th e 1 8 0 -d a ylim itatio n p e rio d se t o u t in th e IA D A , the c h a rg e s a g a in st h im w e re d ism iss e d w ith p re ju d ice . T h e S tate a p p e a led th e d ism iss a l, an d th e c o u rt o f a p p e a ls a f f ir m e d th e d e c is io n o f

th e tr ia l c o u rt . St at e v. V ot t a, A / K / A Jos eph Vi t al , 267 S. W . 3d 197 ( T ex. A pp. - C orpus C hr i s t i 2008) . T he St at e fi l ed a pe t i t i on fordi s cr et i onaryr evi ew rai si ng seven g round s for r eview . W e revers e t he co urtof ap peals . F a cts A ppel l ee w as arr es t ed i n J acks on C ount yand cha r ged w i t h pos s es s i on of coc ai ne and pos s es s i on of her oi n. H e t ol d t he pol i ce hi s name w as J os eph V i t al , and thi s i s t he name underw hi ch he w as i ndi ct ed. H e pos t ed bond, butl at erfai l ed t o appea rfort he char ges . A s a r es ul t , he w as al s o i ndi ct ed, undert he name J os eph V i t al , fort w o count s of b ail jum p ing an d fa il u re to a p p ea r. W hi l e thes e cha r ges w er e pendi ng, A ppel l ee w as convi ct ed of a fede r al cr i m e and in c a rc e ra ted in th e f

e d e ra l co rre c tio n a l f

a c ili tyin M in e rsv ill e , P e n n sy lv a n ia, u n d e r h is r eal name, J os eph V ot t a. T he J acks on C ount ySher i ff’ s D epart m entl ocat ed A ppel l ee a nd s enta l et t eras ki ng t he i ns t i tut i on t o pl ace det ai ner s on hi m . T he l et t eri dent i fi ed A ppel l ee as “V ot t a, J os eph, aka V i t al , J os eph” a nd l i s t ed the w arr ant s as “Pos s es s i on of a C ont r ol l ed Subs t ance i n Penal t yG r oup 1, t o- w i tcoca i ne ( B ond For fei tur e) and Poss es s i on of a Cont r ol l ed s ubs t ance i n penal t ygr oup 1, t o- w i tH er oi n ( B ond F o rf e itu re ).” T h e o n ly ca u s e n u m b e rs lis te d w e re f o r t h e p o s s e s s io n c h a rg e s . T he I nm at e Sy s t ems M anage ratt he fe der al corr ect i onal fac i l i t yr ece i ved theVotta–Pag e 3

Th ec ourt

of a pp e a ls s ay s th at th ele tter w a s r e c e ive d o n Augus t 9 , h ow e ve r t hat is 2 th actually the date that Minersville rec eived the return re ceipts that we re signed for by the J ackson County c le rk and thedis tric t atto rn e y ’s of

fi c eon Augus t 4 .

th det ai ner s fr om t he J acks on C ount ySher i ff’ s D epart m entand r epl i ed w i t h a det ai ner act i on l et t eri nfor m i ng t he J acks on C ount ySher i ff’ s D epart m entt hatt he det ai nerhad b e e n f iled f o r b o th p o ss e ss io n c h a rg e s a g a in st J o se p h V o tta, a lias Jo se p h V ital. T h is l et t erw as dat ed J ul y19, 2005, and di d notm ent i on bond for fei tur e orbai l j um pi ng and fa il u re to a p p ea r. O n Ju ly2 8 , 2 0 0 5 , A p p e llee re q u e ste d f in a l d isp o sitio n o f

th e d e tain e r p u rsu a n t to t he I A D A . T he I nm at e Sy s t ems M anage ratt he M i ner s vi l l e fe der al peni t ent i arys ent , by cert i fi ed mai l , a l et t ert o t he J acks on C ount yD i s t r i ctA t t or ney ’ s O ffi ce, w i t h a not at i on on t he bot t om : “C C : C l er k of C our t . ” The cert i fi ed- m ai l r etur n- r ece i ptcar ds w er e s entt o t he D i s t r i ctA t t or neyand t o “J acks on C ount y , C l er k of C our t . ” I n t he l et t er , A ppel l ee w as i den t i fi ed as Joseph V ott a, and on l yt he p ossess i on cou nts w ere l i st ed w i t h n o cau se num ber s i ncl uded. T he l et t erw as r ece i ved byt he di s t r i ctat t or ney ’ s offi ce a nd t he J acks on C ount ycl er k’ s offi ce on A ugus t4, 2005 . H ow ever , t he d istric t cl er k’ s offi ce, 2 wh e r e Ap p e l l e e ’ s c h a r g e s we r e p e n d i n g , d i d n o tr e c e i v e t h e r e q u e s t . Th e I n ma t e S y s t e ms M a n a g e rs e n ta l e t t e ro n N o v e m b e r7 , 2 0 0 5 , r e m i n d i n g t h e d i s t r i c ta t t o r n e y t h a t9 0 d a ys had pas s ed s i nce the r ece i ptof A ppel l ee’ s r eques tfordi s pos i t i on of unt r i ed cha r ges under t he I A D A , and thatan i ndi vi dual m us tbe br oughtt o t r i al w i t hi n 180 day s fr om t he dat e of r ece i ptof t hi s paperw ork. O n February7, 2006, t he I nm at e Sy s t ems M anage rs entVotta–Pag e 4

anotherl et t ert o t he di s t r i ctat t or neyt o i nfor m hi m t hat180 day s had el aps ed s i nce A ppel l ee’ s r eques tand thatt he det ai ner s had expi r ed. B ot h l et t er s r efe r r ed t o A ppel l ee on l yas Joseph V ott a and did not i nclude cau se num bers. O n O ct ober16, 2006, A ppel l ee f i l ed a mot i on w i t h t he J acks on C ount yD i s t r i ct C our tt o di s m i s s al l fourcount s forfai l ur e t o compl yw i t h t he 180- daydeadl i ne mandat ed byt he I A D A . B ot h names, J os eph V i t al and J os eph V ot t a w er e l i s t ed w i t hi n t he mot i on an d co p ies o f th e IA D A p ap erw o rk th at ha d b ee n p rev iou slysen t t o the c o u n tyclerk ’s offi ce w er e att ache d as exhi bi t s . T he di s t r i ctat t or neyw as notpr ovi ded a c opyof the m ot i on. A ft era hea r i ng, t he tr i al cour tdi s m i s s ed the i ndi ct m ent s i n al l fourof the pendi ng c a u s e s w ith p re

ju d ic e o n A u g u s t 3 0 , 2 0 0 7 . T h e S ta te f ile d a m o tio n f

o r r e c o n s id e ra tio n , a mot i on r eques t i ng t hatt he courtent erfi ndi ngs of fa ct s and conc l us i ons of l aw , and r eques t ed a he ar i ng on i t s m ot i ons . A l t hough a hea r i ng w as s chedul ed forSept ember 13, 2007, t he tr i al cour tcanc el l ed the hea r i ng. I n r es pons e, t he St at e fi l ed a s econd mot i on fort he tr i al cour tt o ent erfi ndi ngs of fa ctand conc l us i ons of l aw . W hen no fi ndi ngs of fa ct an d co n clus ion s o f law w ere en tered , the S tat e f il ed a re m ind er o f th e c o u rt ’s obl i gat i on t o fi l e fi ndi ngs of fa ctand conc l us i ons of l aw . T he tr i al cour tent er ed i t s fi nal or derdi s m i s s i ng al l char ges on O ct ober2, 2007. T he St at e s ubs equent l yfi l ed a not i ce of pas t - due fi ndi ngs of fa ctand conc l us i ons of l aw pur s uantt o R ul e 297 of the Texas R ul es o f C iv il p ro c e d u re , b u t n o f in d in g s o f

f a c t o r c o n c lu s io n s o f

la w w e re e v e r e n te re d .Votta–Pag e 5

Th ec ourt

of a pp e a ls n ote d th at a

c op y of Appe lle e ’s IAD A p a

pe rw or k w a s atta c he d to 3 the motion to dis miss that was filed with the District Clerk’s of ficeon October

16, 2006, and the hearing w as not until 318 day s later, on August 30, 2007. Th eStateidenti fi e d th epe ndingc ha rg e s a s “ Pos se ssi on

of a Controll e d Su

bs tanc ein 4 Pe nalty Grou p 1 , towi t, c oc a ine(B on d F or fe iture ) a nd Pos se ssi on

of a Controll e d Su

bs tanc e in Penalty Group 1, to wit, heroin ( Bond F orfe iture)” C o u r t o f A p p e a ls T h e S ta te a p p e a le d th e tr ia l c o u rt ’s o rd e r d is m is s in g th e in d ic tm e n ts . V o tta , A /K /A Jos eph Vi t al , 2 6 7 S .W .3 d 1 9 7 . T h e S tate a rg u e d th a t A p p e llee f a iled to c o m p lyw ith I A D A ’ s r equi r ement t hathe del i verhi s r eques tt o t he appr opr i at e court . T he courtof appea l s di s agr eed, s t at i ng t hatA ppel l ee s how ed thatbot h t he tr i al cour tand the J acks on C ount yD i s t r i ctA t t or neyhad hi s r eques ton fi l e form or e than 180 day s pr i ort o t he h e a ri n g o n th e m o tio n to d is m is s . Id . at202. T he St at e al s o ar gued thatA ppel l ee f ai l ed 3 t o pr ovi de s uffi ci entnot i ce t o t he tr i al cour tbeca us e hi s r eques tfordi s pos i t i on w as fi l ed underhi s r eal name, “J os eph V ot t a, ” and nott he al i as he us ed w hen he w as arr es t ed, “J os eph V i t al . ” The cour tof appe al s agai n di s agr eed, not i ng t hatt he corr es pondence betw een the s t at e and the pr i s on cont ai ned both A ppel l ee’ s r eal name and t he al i as he had u s e d , th u s th e s ta te w a s a w a re o f w h o w a s s u b m ittin g th e s p e e d y -d is p o s itio n re q u e s t. Id . T h e S tate c laim e d th a t th e trial c o u rt e rre d in d ism iss in g th e c h a rg e s f o r b a il ju m p in g a n d f

a ilu re to a p p e a r b e c a u s e n o d e ta in e r w a s f ile d re la te d to th o s e in d ic tm e n ts . H o w e v e r, th e C o u rt o f

A p p e a ls d e ter m in e d th a t b ylistin g “ B o n d F o rf e itu re ” w h e n it id e n tifie d A p p e llee ’s p o ss e ss io n c h a rg e s, th e S tate “ c lea rlysh o w s its in ten t to p ro se c u te 4Votta–Pag e 6

appel l ee on the pendi ng bai l j um pi ng and fa i l ur e t o appea ri ndi ct m ent s . ” Id . at203. C i t i ng ourhol di ng i n C u llen v . S ta te , 195 S. W . 3d 696 ( T ex. C r i m . A pp. 2006) , t he St at e cl ai m ed thatt he tr i al cour terr ed i n fai l i ng t o ent erfi ndi ngs of fa ctand conc l us i ons o f law . T h e c o u rt o f

a p p e a ls c o n c lu d e d th a t b e c a u se th e trial c o u rt’s d e ter m in a tio n d id notr equi r e cr edi bi l i t ydet er m i nat i ons , butr atherr el i ed onl yon a fa ci al r evi ew of the d o c u m e n ts p ro v id e d b yth e p ri s o n e r, C ul l en di d notappl yi n t hi s cas e. A ddi t i onal l y , t he t r i al cour t ’ s fai l ur e t o ent erfi ndi ngs di d notr equi r e the courtof appe al s t o m ake a ny a s s u m p tio n s a b o u t th e f a c ts o f th e c a s e o r a b o u t th e re a s o n s f o r t h e tr ia l c o u rt ’s d e c is io n . T h e re f o re , the S tate w a s n o t p re v e n ted f ro m p re se n tin g th e a p p e a l. T h e c o u rt o f a p p e a ls a f f irm e d th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e trial c o u rt a n d h e ld th a t th e trial c o u rt d id n o t er r in f a ili n g to f ile f in d in g s o f

f a c t. T h e S ta te ’s m o tio n f o r r e h e a ri n g w a s d e n ie d . V o tta , 267 S. W . 3d at 204. T he St at e fi l ed a pe t i t i on fordi s cr et i onaryr evi ew , w hi ch w e gr ant ed t o cons i der t h e f o l l o wi n g g r o u n d s f

o rr e v i e w: 1) D i d t he C our tof A ppeal s erri n r efus i ng t o r equi r e the tr i al cour tt o ent er f i n d i n g s o f

f a c ta n d c o n c l u s i o n s o f

l a w? 2) D i d t he C our tof A ppeal s erri n concl udi ng t hatr es pondentm ade a pr oper re q u e st f o r f in a l d isp o sitio n o f

c h a rg e s, a s re q u ire d b yA rt. 5 1 .1 4 , V .A .C .C .P . to bot h t he pr os ecut i ng offi cerand the appr opr i at e courtas i s r equi r ed t o i nvoke the j uri sdi ct i on of thatactand authori ze t he tr i al cou rtt o d i sm i ss pending indi ct m ents ? 3) D i d t he C our tof A ppeal erri n concl udi ng t hatR es pondent ’ s r eques tforfi nal di s pos i t i on of cha r ges undera name ot hert han the name underw hi ch he i s char gedVotta–Pag e 7

A d e ta iner i s a

re qu e st b y

a c ri min a l ju sti c ea g e nc y

that is fi le d w iththeins tit uti on in 5 which a prisoner is incarcerated, a sking that the prisoner beheld for theag ency, or that the ag ency be advise d when the prisoner’s relea se is imminent. Fex v. Mic higan , 507 U.S. 43, 44 is s u f f icie n t to g iv e th e p ro se c u to r n o tice o f R e sp o n d e n t’s re q u e st? 4) D i d t he C our tof A ppeal s erri n concl udi ng t hata mot i on fi l ed byR es pondent s eeki ng di s m i s s al of cha r ges cons t i tut ed compl i ance underar t i cl e 51. 14, V . A . C . C . P. as a r eques tt o be r etur ned t o t he St at e of Texas forfi nal di s pos i t i on of pen ding cha rges? 5 ) D id th e C o u rt o f

A p p e a ls e rr in c o n c lu d in g th a t th e trial c o u rt h a d a u th o rityto d ism iss C a u se N o s. 9 7 -2 -5 8 2 7 a n d 9 7 -2 -5 8 2 8 (f o r b a ili n g ju m p in g a n d f a ilu re to appea r ) undert he r equi r ement of art i cl e 51. 14 t hatonl ycaus es w hi ch w er e s ubj ect t o det ai ner s coul d be di s m i s s ed? 6) D i d the C ou rtof A pp eal s err i n co ncludi ng t hat det ai ners w ere fi l ed ag ai nst R es pondenti n C aus e N os . 97- 2- 5827 and 97- 2- 5828 ( forbai l i ng j um pi ng and fa il u re to a p p ea r i n d ict m en ts) ? 7) D i d t he C our tof A ppeal s erri n concl udi ng t hatr efe r ence t o “bond for fei tur e” c o n s titu te d p la c in g a d e ta in e r o n R e s p o n d e n t u n d e r a rt . 5 1 .1 4 , V .A .C .C .P .? T he I nt ers t at e A gree m ent on D et ai ners A ct In C o d e o f

C rim in a l P ro c e d u re A rticle 5 1 .1 4 , T e x a s a d o p ts T h e In ter sta te A gr eementon D et ai ner s A ct , w hi ch out l i nes t he coope r at i ve pr ocedur e betw een the s t at es t o be us ed w hen one s t at e i s s eeki ng t o t r ya pr i s onerw ho i s curr ent l yi m pr i s oned i n a p e n a l o r c o rre c tio n a l in stitu tio n o f a n o th e r sta te. T h e sta te w ith a n u n tried in d ictm e n t, i nfor m at i on, orcompl ai ntagai ns tt he pr i s onerfi l es a det ai nerw i t h t he i ns t i tut i on i n t he s t at e thati s hol di ng t he pr i s oner . T he pr i s on i s r equi r ed t o pr om pt l yi nfor m t he pr i s oner 5Votta–Pag e 8

(2003). Under

Texas Code of Criminal Procedurearticle51.14, article s I I I (a) and (b) of the 6 IADA spe cify

that the re quest and c ertificate must be sent by the warden, commissioner of corrections, or other

official havingcustody

of the prisone r, to the prose cutingofficial and the appropriate cour

t by reg istered or

cer tified mail, return rece ipt requested. t hata det ai nerhas been f i l ed aga i ns thi m and thathe has t he r i ghtt o r eques tfi nal d is p o s itio n o f

th e c h a rg e s . T EX . C OD E C R IM . P R OC . A NN . ar t . 51. 14 A r t . I I I ( c) . T he pr i s onerm ayt hen r eques tfi nal di s pos i t i on bygi vi ng w r i t t en not i ce t o t he w ar den, w ho fo rw ard s the req u est, alon g w ith a c erti fica te co n tai n ing inf o rm ati o n ab o u t th e p ri so n er’s curr entconfi nement , t o t he pr os ecut i ng offi cerand the appr opr i at e courtof the pr os ecut i ng offi cer ’ s j ur i s di ct i on. U nderA r t i cl e I I I ( a) , t he pr i s onerm us tt hen be br ought 6 t o t r i al i n t he r ece i vi ng s t at e w i t hi n 180 day s fr om t he dat e on w hi ch the pr os ecut i ng off i cer and the app ropri at e cou rtrecei ve thi s w ri t t en requ estfor a fi nal di sposi t i on , un l ess a c o n tin u a n c e is g ra n te d u n d e r t h e IA D A . T EX . C OD E C R IM . P R OC . A NN . art. 5 1 .1 4 , art. III (a) (V ern o n 2 0 0 6 ). If the p ri so n er is no t bro u g h t t o tr ial w ith in 1 8 0 d ay s, the tri al co u rt m u s t d is m is s th e in d ic tm e n t w ith p re ju d ic e . T EX . C OD E C R IM . P R OC . A NN . art. 5 1 .1 4 , art. III (d) (V ern o n 2 0 0 6 ). G r ounds 1, 2, and 3 In its f irst g ro u n d f

o r re v iew , the S tate a rg u e s th a t th e c o u rt o f a p p e a ls e rre d in fai l i ng t o r equi r e the tr i al cour tt o ent erfi ndi ngs of fa ctand conc l us i ons of l aw . U nder s i m i l arci r cumst ance s , t he St at e i n St at e v. C ul l en , 195 S. W . 3d 696 ( T ex. C r i m . A pp.Votta–Pag e 9

We acknowle dg e that the c ase be foreus relate s to a hea ringon a motion to dism iss rather 7 tha n a su pp re ssi on he ari ng , h ow e ve r t

here a so nin gfrom Cullen is stil l applicable. 2006) , r eques t ed thatfi ndi ngs of fa ctand conc l us i ons of l aw be ent er ed i nt o t he r ecor d, butt he tr i al cour tr efus ed. W e s t at ed, “The r efus al of tr i al cour t s t o ent erfi ndi ngs of fa ct w hen t i m el yr eques t ed byt he St at e l eave s appel l at e court s w i t h not hi ng t o r evi ew exce pt a one- w or d rul i ng and for ces t he court s of appe al s t o m ake a s s um pt i ons aboutt he tr i al co u rt ’s ruli n g . T h e ru li n g co u ld b e b ase d o n a m ist ak e o f law , o n the tri al co u rt ’s d is b e lie f o f th e te s tim o n yp re s e n te d , o r e v e n o n a c le ri c a l e rr o r.” I d. a t 6 9 8 . 7 T h e c o u rt o f

a p p e a ls h e ld th a t C ul l en do es not applyi n thi s si tuati on becau se l ooki ng att he fa ce of

t he document s t o det erm i ne compl i ance w i t h t he I A D A di d not r equi r e an e xami nat i on of t he cr edi bi l i t yof the w i t nes s es , s o i tw as notnece s s aryfort he tr ia l c o u rt to e n te r f

in d in g s o f

f a c t a n d c o n c lu s io n s o f

la w . W e agr ee thati n s om e ca s es i nvol vi ng t he I A D A , a courtm aydet er m i ne w hether t he pr i s onercompl i ed w i t h t he r equi r ement s of the I A D A and w hethert he 180- dayper i od w as exce eded bys i m pl yexami ni ng t he dat e the pr i s oner ’ s r eques tfordi s pos i t i on w as r ece i ved, t he dat e of the pr i s oner ’ s m ot i on t o di s m i s s , and the dat e of the tr i al orhear i ng fort hos e cha r ges . H ow ever , t hi s cas e di d noti nvol ve mer el yan exa m i nat i on of paperw or k t o det er m i ne w hethert he r equi r ement s of the I A D A w er e met . C r edi bi l i t yw as an i s s ue att he hea r i ng beca us e fourw i t nes s es t es t i fi ed t o di ffe r entver s i ons of the fa ct s of th e c a s e .Votta–Pag e 10

Fi r s t , t he tr i al cour thad t o det er m i ne w hethert he appr opr i at e courtr ece i ved the r eques tforfi nal di s pos i t i on of t he cha r ges . T he di s t r i ctcl er k t es t i fi ed thats he di d not have the r eques ton fi l e and di d notr emem berr ece i vi ng i texce ptw hen i tw as at t ache d as an exhi bi tt o t he mot i on t o di s m i s s . T he deputycountycl er k, w ho actual l yr ece i ved the document , t es t i fi ed thats he coul d notr eca l l get t i ng anym ai l t hatw as s entt o t he di s t r i ct at t or neyand thats he di d notknow w hathappene d w i t h t he pape r w or k once i tl efther offi ce. B ut , s he not ed thatpaperw or k s entt o t he w r ong offi ce w oul d nor m al l ybe re d ire c ted to th e c o rre c t re c ip ien t. T h e c o u n tyc ler k a lso tes tifie d , b u t sa id th a t h e c o u ld o n lysp ec u lat e tha t th e d o cu m en ts m ayh av e b ee n g iven to the d istri ct clerk if t h eyw ere r ece i ved byt he countycl er k’ s offi ce. M os ti m por t ant l y , t he tr i al j udge s peci fi cal l ys t at ed att he hea r i ng t hathe w as notm aki ng a fi ndi ng t hata l et t eraddr es s ed t o t he di s t r i ct at t or neyw oul d have gone t o t he di s t r i ctcl er k beca us e i ts ai d “C C cl er k of court ” on the bot t om . A nd, t he def

ens e s t i pul at ed att he hea r i ng t hatt he r eques tforfi nal di s pos i t i on of t he cha r ges w as notdel i ver ed t o t he di s t r i ctcour t . T hus , fr om t he r ecor d, i tappea r s t hat t he d ocu m ents w ere not recei ved byt he requ i red part i es. W hetherA ppel l ee’ s r eques tfordi s pos i t i on pr ovi ded pr opernot i ce w as al s o a con t est ed is sue. A tt he h eari ng , t he d i stri ctat t orneyrai sed t he is sue t hat A pp el l ee’s al i as, V i t al –w hi ch i s t he name underw hi ch the cha r ges agai ns thi m w er e fi l ed–w as notl i s t ed on t he r eques tfordi s pos i t i on t hatw as s entt o t he di s t r i ctat t or ney . A ppel l ee t es t i fi ed that he oft en us ed al i as es t o getouton bai l and admi t t ed thathe di d noti ncl ude hi s al i as onVotta–Pag e 11

t he I A D A paperw or k. H ow ever , t he courtof appe al s concl uded that , beca us e the s her i ff l i s t ed A ppel l ee’ s al i as on t he det ai ners entt o t he pr i s on, t he St at e knew A ppel l ee’ s actual nam e and al i as. T he co urtof ap peals al so determ i ned t hat A pp el l ee did no tuse o b stru c tio n ist tac tics , su c h a s a ltere d n a m e s, to c irc u m v e n t th e IA D A a n d a v o id pr os ecut i on. W e ar e uns ur e how t he courtof appe al s as cert ai ned thi s w i t houtfi ndi ngs of fac tbyt he tr i al cour tbas ed on the obs er vat i on of the cr edi bi l i t yand demeanorof the w itn e s s . Fi nal l y , A ppel l ee t es t i fi ed thatdet ai ner s had bee n fi l ed aga i ns thi m foronl yt he t w o pos s es s i on char ges . T he courtof appe al s , how ever , hel d t hatdet ai ner s had al s o been pl ace d on A ppel l ee f

orhi s t w o bai l j um pi ng and fa i l ur e t o appea rchar ges bas ed on the

“ b o n d f o rf e itu re ” n o ta tio n o n th e d e ta in e r l e tte r. T he r eas oni ng of t he courtof appe al s w oul d m ean thatt he tr i al cour tbel i eved A p p ell ee ’s t esti m o n ythat the S tat e k n ew h is al ias, an d that h e f il ed h is I A D A p ap erw o rk i n t he pr opercour t , butt hatt he tr i al cour tdi d notbel i eve hi m t hatdet ai ner s w er e fi l ed againsthim for on l yt he p ossess i on charges. T he courtof appe al s err ed i n fai l i ng t o r equi r e the tr i al cour tt o ent erfi ndi ngs of fac tand conc l us i ons of l aw . W i t houts uch fi ndi ngs fr om t he tr i al cour t , t he courtof appea l s coul d notdet er m i ne w hetherA ppel l ee’ s r eques tfordi s pos i t i on of the cha r ges w as pr oper l yr ece i ved bybot h t he pr os ecut i ng offi cerand the appr opr i at e court , or wh e t h e rt h e I ADA p a p e r wo r k p r o v i d e d s u f f i c i e n tn o t i c e a l t h o u g h i tl i s t e d a n a meVotta–Pag e 12

di ffe r entfr om t hatunderw hi ch A ppel l ee w as char ged. G r ound 4 T he pet i t i oneri n Fex v . Mi chi gan , 507 U . S. 43 ( 1993) , ar gued thatt he 180- day p e rio d in th e IA D A b e g in s w h e n th e p riso n e r g iv e s h is re q u e st f o r f in a l d isp o sitio n to pr i s on offi ci al s . T he Supr eme C our tdi s agr eed, r eas oni ng t hat , s i nce A r t i cl e I I I ( b) r equi r es t he w ar den t o for w ar d t he pr i s oner ’ s r eques tand ac company i ng document s by reg ist ere d o r ce rt ifi ed m ail , return rec eipt req u ested , the IA D A “p rov ides fo r do cu m en tary evi dence of t he dat e on w hi ch the r eques ti s del i ver ed t o t he off i ci al s of the r ece i vi ng St at e, butr equi r es no r ecor d of t he dat e on w hi ch i ti s t r ans m i t t ed t o t he w ar den. ” I d. at 51. T hus , t he Supr eme C our thel d t hat“the 180- dayt i m e per i od i n A r t i cl e I I I ( a) of the I A D does notcomm ence unt i l t he pr i s oner ’ s r eques tforfi nal di s pos i t i on of the cha r ges agai ns thi m has actual l ybeen de l i ver ed t o t he courtand pr os ecut i ng offi cerof the j ur i s di ct i on t hatl odged the det ai neragai ns thi m . ” I d. a t 5 2 . H er e, t he courtof appe al s det er m i ned thatt he di s t r i ctcl er k pr oper l yr ece i ved A ppel l ee’ s r eques tfordi s pos i t i on w hen he f i l ed a mot i on t o di s m i s s and i ncl uded copi es of hi s I A D A paperw or k at t ache d as exhi bi t s . C ons equent l y , bot h t he pr os ecut orand the c o u rt h a d A p p e llee ’s r e q u e st f o r m o re th a n 1 8 0 d a y s p rio r to th e h e a rin g o n th e m o tio n to d is m is s , w h ic h w a s n o t u n til 3 1 8 d a y s a f te r t h e d is tr ic t c o u rt re c e iv e d th e s e d o c u m e n ts . T he courtof appe al s r el i ed on U n itedS ta tes v . D a ily , 4 8 8 F . 3 d 7 9 6 , 7 9 7 -98 , 8 0 1 (8 C ir . th 2 0 0 7 ), w h ich sa id th a t th e d e f e n d a n t h a d n o t co m p lied w ith IA D A n o tice re q u ire m e n tsVotta–Pag e 13

p rio r to th e f

ili n g o f h is m o tio n to d ism iss . B e f o re D a ilyf

iled a m o tio n to d ism iss , h is w r i t t en not i ce of

a r eques tfordi s m i s s al had bee n r ece i ved onl ybyt he w ar den, w ho had n o ts e n ti tt o t h e c o u r ta n d p r o s e c u t i n g o f f i c e r . T h e h e a r i n g w a s h e l d m o r e t h a n 1 8 0 d a ys fr om t he dat e he ga ve hi s r eques tt o t he w ar den, butw i t hi n 180 day s of the dat e the p ro p e r c o u rts re c e iv e d h is m o tio n to d ism iss . D a ilya rg u e d th a t th e 1 8 0 -d a yp e rio d sh o u ld begi n w hen the r eques tfordi s pos i t i on i s gi ven t o t he w ar den, butt he courtdi s agr eed a nd hel d t hats i nce the hea r i ng w as w i t hi n 180 day s of the mot i on t o di s m i s s , w hi ch w as t he f irst tim e th e p ro se c u to r a n d trial c o u rt k n e w o f th e re q u e st, th e h e a rin g w a s h e ld w ith in tim e a llo w e d u n d e r I A D A . W hi l e D a ily det er m i ned thatt he hea r i ng i n t hatcas e w as pr oper l yhel d w i t hi n t he 180- dayper i od al l ot t ed byt he I A D A , i tdi d nots ayt hata mot i on t o di s m i s s cons t i tut es p ro p e r n o tice o f

a re q u e st f

o r d isp o sitio n in a ll situ a tio n s. T h e S tate p o in ts o u t th a t a m ot i on t o di s m i s s i s cl ear l ynota r eques tt o w ai ve extr adi t i on and s t and tr i al , w hi ch i s t he pu rpose of the I A D A . T herefore, i tm akes no sense t o sayt hat a m oti on t o d i sm i ss char ges cons t i tut es pr opernot i ce of a des i r e t o s t and tr i al . W e agr ee. A ppel l ee’ s m ot i on t o di s m i s s t he cha r ges w as notpr opernot i ce t o t he di s t r i ctcour tof hi s r eques tfor di s pos i t i on. T he courtof appe al s err ed i n hol di ng t hatt he di s t r i ctcour tr ece i ved A p p e lle e ’s re q u e s t f

o r d is p o s itio n . G rounds 5, 6, 7- - B ai l Jum pi ng and F ai l ure t o A ppear T h e S tate a rg u e s th a t th e c o u rt o f a p p e a ls e rre d in c o n c lu d in g th a t th e re f e re n c e toVotta–Pag e 14

b o n d f o rf e itu re o n th e d e tain e rs f o r th e p o ss e ss io n c h a rg e s c o n stitu ted a d e tain e r f o r b a il j um pi ng. A nd, s i nce no de t ai ner s w er e fi l ed fort he bai l j um pi ng and fa i l ur e t o appea r c h a rg e s , th e tr ia l c o u rt d id n o t h a v e th e a u th o ri ty to d is m is s th o s e c a u s e s . W e agr ee. T her e i s not hi ng i n t he r ecor d i ndi cat i ng t hatdet ai ner s w er e fi l ed for t he bai l j um pi ng and fa i l ur e t o appea rchar ges . T he par enthet i cal bond for fei tur e on the det ai ner s fort he pos s es s i on char ges i s i n no w ays uffi ci entt o cons t i tut e a de t ai nerfor char ges of bai l j um pi ng and fa i l ur e t o appea r . W hi l e fa i l i ng t o appea ri n cour tdoes aut om at i cal l yr es ul ti n t he for fei tur e of a bond, a def endantcan ha ve bond for fei t ed i n a cas e w i t houtbei ng char ged w i t h bai l j um pi ng and fa i l ur e t o appea r . U nderC hapt er22 of t he C ode of Cri m i nal Pr ocedur e, bond for fei tur e i s a j udgm ent , ent er ed w hen a de fenda nt fai l s t o appea ri n cour t , w hi ch s t at es t hatt he St at e of Texas s hal l r ecove rt he amount of m on eybyw hich t he d efen dan ti s bou nd . B ai l Jum ping and F ai l ure t o A pp ear i s a compl et el ys epar at e off ens e underPenal C ode Sect i on 38. 10. A ddi t i onal l y , a def endant can be char ged w i t h B ai l J um pi ng and Fai l ur e t o A ppeareven i f he w er e r el eas ed fr om cus t odyw i t houtbai l , t hus m aki ng hi m i nel i gi bl e fora bond- for fei tur e j udgm ent . T he cour tof appe al s err ed i n hol di ng t hata not at i on r egar di ng bond for fei tur e s how ed the St at e’ s i nt entt o pr os ecut e A ppel l ee f orbai l j um pi ng and fa i l ur e t o appea r . T her efor e, t he c o u rt o f a p p e a ls’s c o n c lu sio n th a t d e tain e rs w e re f iled f o r b a il j u m p in g a n d f

a ilu re to appea ri s al s o err oneous . B eca us e det ai ner s w er e notfi l ed fort hes e cha r ges , t he courtof a p p e a l s e r r e d i n d i s mi s s i n g t h e m.Votta–Pag e 15

C oncl usi on T he courtof appe al s err ed i n fai l i ng t o r equi r e the tr i al cour tt o ent erfi ndi ngs of fac tand conc l us i ons of l aw . W i t houtfi ndi ngs , t he courtof appe al s err ed i n concl udi ng t hatt he pr os ecut i ng offi cerand the appr opr i at e courtpr oper l yr ece i ved not i ce of A ppel l ee’ s r eques tfordi s pos i t i on even though i tw as s entundera di ffe r entname t han t hatunderw hi ch the cha r ges w er e fi l ed and t o t he countycour tr athert han the di s t r i ct c o u rt w h e re c h a rg e s w e re p e n d in g . T h e c o u rt o f a p p e a ls a lso e rre d in c o n c lu d in g th a t a m ot i on t o di s m i s s cons t i tut ed pr opernot i ce of a r eques tfordi s pos i t i on i n t he di s t r i ct cour t . Fi nal l y , w e hol d t hatno det ai ner s w er e fi l ed aga i ns tA ppel l ee f orbai l j um pi ng and fai l ure t o ap pear, so t he co urtof ap peals had no authori t yt o d i sm i ss tho se charges. T he j udgm ent s of t he courtof appe al s ar e r ever s ed, and the ca s e i s r emanded t o t he tr ia l c o u rt f

o r t ri a l.

M ey ers , J.

D el i ver ed: D ece m ber16, 2009 P ub l i sh