Opinion ID: 1972334
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The State's Negligence

Text: The state further argued that the trial justice erred in finding that the state was negligent in not filing this detainer. The trial justice stated: The Attorney General returned an information against the defendant, and on 12/7, [defendant's counsel] appeared at the arraignment, indicated that his client was serving a sentence in Miami, Florida, and moved for a speedy trial at that point. The Clerk's note reflects that the defendant's motion for speedy trial was granted. The Clerk's note also reflects that the defendant was serving a sentence in Miami, Florida, and the Superior Court issued a warrant for the arrest of the defendant. That warrant, however, was never lodged against the defendant in the state of Florida, and that fact has not been explained by the state of Rhode Island adequately to this court. The warrant never having been lodged against the defendant, the defendant certainly could not exercise his rights under the Interstate Compact on detainer. The trial justice also noted that defendant lost the opportunity to serve his Rhode Island and Florida sentences concurrently because of the State's negligence in failing to lodge the warrant. We are of the opinion that the trial justice did not err in finding negligence on the part of the state. Although the state was not required to file a detainer, it was permitted to do so, and its failure to do so denied defendant his right to a timely trial. The IADA serves to assure incarcerated defendants of speedy trials and to protect them from delays in trial caused by prosecuting authorities. State v. Moosey, 504 A.2d 1001, 1003 (R.I. 1986). The IADA itself states that the purpose of the agreement is to encourage the expeditious and orderly disposition of    charges and determination of the proper status of any and all detainers based on untried indictments, informations, or complaints. Section 13-13-2, art. I. Thus, the state had a procedure, the IADA, designed to expedite a defendant's trial in its own jurisdiction while that defendant was incarcerated in another jurisdiction. The state's failure to lodge the detainer was therefore properly considered by the trial justice, who correctly determined that the state's inactivity was negligent.