Opinion ID: 490916
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Conformance of Plaintiff's Request

Text: 31 As an alternative basis for affirming the district court's order, the District Attorney contends that Casper's letter did not satisfy the requirements of Article III and thus did not start the 180 days running. He bases his argument of nonconformance on Casper's failure to include a Form 3 certificate from the appropriate custodial official which must include the full information required by statute, such as the length of time served, good time, and parole eligibility. The District Attorney argues that the 180 days did not begin to run until June 4, 1981, when it received Forms 2, 3, and 4; since Casper's trial began 124 days after receipt of the forms, it met the 180 day requirement of Article III. 32 The Pennsylvania Superior Court assum[ed] arguendo  that the letter written on February 27, 1981 and received on March 12, 1981 met all the requirements of the IAD. App. at 31. Were we obliged to defer to the Superior Court's conclusion that Casper had withdrawn his only effective request to return to Pennsylvania, App. at 31-32, we would also be able to avoid deciding whether Casper's letter constituted an adequate request for disposition under Article III. 33 We must give the Superior Court's findings of fact a presumption of correctness unless we determine that they are not fairly supported by the record. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254(d)(8); Sumner v. Mata, 449 U.S. 539, 545-49, 101 S.Ct. 764, 768-70, 66 L.Ed.2d 722 (1981). The district court concluded, there is reason to doubt the accuracy of the Superior Court's assessment concerning whether Casper withdrew his request to return to Pennsylvania. App. at 184. We agree. The Superior Court relied on two items, one of which was Lawson's letter of April 16, 1981 stating that Casper refused to sign the form. In view of the fact the Form 2 signed by Casper requesting return to Montgomery County is dated March 27, 1981, App. at 128, and nothing in the record indicates that Casper signed it on a different date, 11 the April 16 letter provides inadequate support for the Superior Court's conclusion. 34 The other basis referred to by the Superior Court, Casper's testimony at a Philadelphia hearing relating to a sentence on a charge different than the matter before us, was quoted somewhat out of context. The Superior Court quoted Casper's testimony as follows: 35 The Defendant: Just listen to me, your honor ... What I did is I was pushed to come to Philadelphia on the grounds that I could come back here and get help and stuff in the beginning before anything happened. 36 App. at 32 (emphasis added by Superior Court). As quoted, it suggests Casper was unwilling to return voluntarily. The complete testimony was: 37 Just listen to me, your Honor; I tried committing suicide a few times. I have had that feeling. What I did is I was pushed for the petition to come back here in Florida before Philadelphia on the grounds that I could come back here and get help and stuff in the beginning before anything happened. I want to get everything out of my way. I want to do it with all the cases I have, but I am scared. 38 App. at 141. The full quotation suggests Casper also had a desire to resolve all pending cases. In light of Casper's many uncontradicted attempts to initiate his return, we are unable to say after review[ing] the record as a whole, that the Superior Court's conclusion that Casper withdrew the February 27 letter is fairly supported by the record. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254(d)(8). 39 We must determine, therefore, whether Casper's February 27, 1981 letter was an effective request under Article III of the IAD. Neither the Superior Court nor the district court made conclusive findings on this issue. Casper's letter stated: 40 I recently received notice from my classification officer that I have a detainer placed against me from your jurisdiction. I am presently incarcerated with the Florida Department of Corrections for a five year sentence. I have charge No's M.C. 8005-3179 Burglary, C.P. 8005-1686 Attempted Burglary, C.P. 8003-1330 Burglary pending in your jurisdiction. I wish to dispose of these and any and all other charges, if any, as fast and easily as possible. Please consider this my formal request for a fast and speedy trial in these matters. I also waive extradition at this time. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. 41 App. at 124. Neither the certificate from the Florida officials nor any information other than the length of Casper's sentence was provided by Casper at this time. 42 In the portion of our opinion in Nash v. Jeffes, 739 F.2d 878 (3d Cir.1984), rev'd sub nom., Carchman v. Nash, 473 U.S. 716, 105 S.Ct. 3401, 87 L.Ed.2d 516 (1985), that was not the subject of the Supreme Court's reversal, and which therefore remains binding on us, see 1B J. Moore, Moore's Federal Practice p 0.402 at 25-26 nn. 2-3 (2d ed. 1984), we noted that courts have generally required that prisoners must strictly comply with IAD procedures before they will dismiss charges on the basis of a violation of [the 180-day provision of] Article III. 739 F.2d at 884; see also Williams v. Maryland, 445 F.Supp. 1216, 1220 (D.Md.1978) (letter to state district court requesting trial on state charge did not satisfy the requirements of Article III); Gray v. Benson, 443 F.Supp. 1284, 1986 (D.Kan.1978) (letter to U.S. Attorney requesting disposition of detainer which did not include the necessary certificate and was not delivered to the appropriate court was not sufficient to trigger Article III of the Act); Beebe v. Vaughn, 430 F.Supp. 1220, 1223-24 (D.Del.1977) (letter addressed to court clerk informing court of inmate's incarceration and providing notification to the court for a fast and speedy trial did not satisfy the requirements of the IADA since letter did not inform officials that IADA was being invoked and little information was given about inmate's current term of incarceration). But see Franks v. Johnson, 401 F.Supp. 669, 672 (E.D.Mich.1975) (quashing detainer where receiving state knew of prisoner's whereabouts and prisoner communicated with receiving state authorities requesting a speedy trial and final disposition even though prisoner refused to waive extradition). 43 There are persuasive reasons for requiring a prisoner to comply with the procedures required by Article III(a) as a predicate for invoking Article V(c)' § severe sanction of dismissal with prejudice. If a prisoner uses what is now the standardized Form 2 request form, see note 2 supra, and includes the certificate mandated by Article III(a), the receiving jurisdiction will be on notice that Article III has been invoked. As we stated in Nash, the prosecuting authorities cannot be expected to analyze each communication from a prisoner with a fine-tooth comb to determine whether it should be construed as invoking the IAD. Nash v. Jeffes, 739 F.2d at 884. An interpretation that imposes the risk on the district attorney's office that Article III would be satisfied by an ambiguous letter from a prisoner which contains an insignificant portion of the information required to be provided could create a trap for unwary prosecuting officials and could defeat the underlying purpose of Article III's procedural requirements which provide a systematic method of rapidly adjudicating charges against prisoners held in another jurisdiction. Id. A prisoner's compliance with the statutory requirements will not only assist the prosecutor in identifying Article III IAD requests but will also enable the prosecutor to make a decision whether to prosecute in the requesting state. For example, the state might choose not to prosecute after learning from the information supplied in the certificate that the prisoner is already serving a lengthy sentence elsewhere on a more serious charge. See Beebe v. Vaughn, 430 F.Supp. at 1223 n. 6. 44 Casper argues that his letter must be considered an effective Article III demand because of our decision in Nash v. Jeffes. We believe Nash is distinguishable. Our conclusion in Nash that the prisoner had satisfied the requirements of Article III was not based on the contents of his letters to New Jersey, which could be considered comparable to Casper's letter in this case, but on the fact that a letter from the New Jersey probation department informing Nash that a hearing would be held as soon as an attorney could be appointed for him constituted an acknowledgement on the part of New Jersey that Nash's letters were being treated as a request for disposition of the charges against him. Nash, 739 F.2d at 885. We stated, On the basis of that letter, Nash was justified in taking no further action when, two weeks later, the Pennsylvania authorities provided him with a 'detainer procedure notice.'  Id. We held that New Jersey, rather than Nash, should bear the responsibility for the delay. 12 45 In this case, there is no basis for charging Pennsylvania with the responsibility for the delay in securing Casper's return. Unlike New Jersey in Nash, Pennsylvania sent Casper no communication upon which he arguably relied in delaying further action. 46 Strict compliance with Article III may not be required when the prisoner has done everything possible, and it is the custodial state that is responsible for the default. See, e.g., Schofs v. Warden, FCI, Lexington, 509 F.Supp. 78, 82 (E.D.Ky.1981) (letters to clerk and state's attorney requesting final disposition of charge against him written by federal prisoner who was denied the necessary forms through no fault of his own satisfied the requirements of Article III). Florida's delay in sending the forms prepared by its custodial officials and signed by Casper months earlier cannot reasonably be charged to Casper. Nor do we deem it decisive that Casper failed to send his letter by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, which Article III(b) requires to be used by the custodial official when forwarding the prisoner's request and the Form 3 certificate. That provision is designed to insure that the request is received. Casper's request, despite its inadequate addressee designation, was in fact received by the appropriate Pennsylvania officials. 47 A prisoner who seeks to rely on the default of the custodial state to excuse his or her failure to satisfy the procedural requirements of the IAD must nonetheless show that s/he substantially complied to the extent possible. In this case, Form 1, which Casper received February 25, 1981 and which precipitated his letter to Philadelphia, advised him that he must include the necessary certificate of the custodial authority with his request for prompt disposition of outstanding charges. He did not do so. Even more important, his letter dated February 27, 1981 cannot be deemed an adequate substitute for the required certificate since it does not contain substantially all the information which Article III requires must be included and which the receiving state is entitled to have before the 180 day clock begins to run. Because Casper's letter was not in substantial conformance with Article III(a), there was no violation of that provision's 180 day requirement. The only effective notice of Casper's request for full disposition of the Pennsylvania charges against him was received by the Philadelphia authorities on June 4, 1981. Casper's trial began on October 6, 1981, well within the required 180 days.