Opinion ID: 1616031
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: unable to stand trial

Text: This case presents the unusual circumstance of a defendant whose incarceration status in the sending state alternated between that of a pretrial detainee and that of a prisoner serving a custodial sentence. As noted, Reed was facing pending charges in Adams County, Illinois, prior to his incarceration at the Menard, Illinois, facility. The record indicates that Reed was moved back and forth between Adams County and the Menard facility by agreement of the parties during the early stages of the Adams County proceedings so that he could serve time on a sentence of imprisonment in the Menard facility. No sentence of imprisonment had been entered in Adams County. The Nebraska detainer was lodged against Reed while he was at the Menard facility. If the detainer had been lodged against Reed while he was being held in Adams County, the Agreement would not apply, as it is not applicable to pretrial detainers. See, e.g., U.S. v. Muniz, 1 F.3d 1018 (10th Cir.1993); U.S. v. Bayless, 940 F.2d 300 (8th Cir.1991); State v. Hargrove, 273 Kan. 314, 45 P.3d 376 (2002); State v. Smith, 115 N.M. 749, 858 P.2d 416 (N.M.App.1993); People v. Wilden, 197 Mich.App. 533, 496 N.W.2d 801 (1992). The Agreement applies solely to persons who have entered upon a term of imprisonment and therefore does not include pretrial detainees. See, Muniz, supra ; Bayless, supra ; Hargrove, supra ; Smith, supra ; Wilden, supra . Pretrial detainees are not serving a sentence at the time the detainer is filed, and thus they have no vested interest in programs of treatment and rehabilitation available to prisoners who are serving sentences. Pretrial detainees are therefore not under the protection of the Agreement. See, Muniz, supra ; Bayless, supra ; Hargrove, supra ; Smith, supra ; Wilden, supra . However, because the Nebraska detainer was filed at a time that Reed happened to be lodged at the Menard facility where he was serving a sentence, the Agreement is applicable to this case. In his first assignment of error, Reed contends that the district court erred in finding that the 180-day time period in which to try him in Nebraska did not expire because he was unable to stand trial in Nebraska while charges were pending against him in Adams County. In this respect, Reed does not challenge the factual findings of the district court, but merely its interpretation of the statutory language of the Agreement. The parties agree that the 180-day period in which to bring Reed to trial in Nebraska began running on October 31, 2001, the day on which both the Lincoln County Attorney and the Lincoln County Court had received notice of Reed's request for final disposition of the pending Nebraska charges. See Fex v. Michigan, 507 U.S. 43, 113 S.Ct. 1085, 122 L.Ed.2d 406 (1993) (holding 180-day period in article III(a) of Agreement commences when request for final disposition is received by prosecutor and appropriate court of jurisdiction that lodged detainer). The issue presented is whether the 180-day time period was tolled while the Adams County charges remained pending. Reed argues in his brief that he was not unable to stand trial in Nebraska because Nebraska could have taken custody of him at any time to meet their [sic] responsibilities under the [Agreement]. Brief for appellant at 13. He argues that his request for final disposition of the Nebraska charges is deemed a waiver of extradition and a consent to the production of his person in Nebraska pursuant to article III(e). He further argues that the warden at the Menard facility offered to deliver temporary custody of Reed to Nebraska and that although the Lincoln County Attorney had complete authorization thereafter to seek custody, he failed to do so simply because the Adams County Attorney expressed a preference that the charges against Reed in Illinois proceed first. Reed contends that pursuant to article IV(a), only the governor of a sending state, in this case Illinois, can refuse a transfer of a prisoner once a request for temporary custody is made by a receiving State and that therefore, the wishes of the Adams County Attorney were completely immaterial and did not affect Nebraska's right under the Agreement to take custody of him. Reed's reliance on article IV(a) is misplaced. As noted, article IV provisions are invoked in situations in which the receiving state initiates the process of proceeding on a lodged detainer. In this case, Reed initiated the process by filing a request for final disposition under article III. As required by the Agreement, his request included an offer of temporary custody made by the Menard facility. Although Nebraska responded to this offer of temporary custody pursuant to article III, Nebraska did not initiate a request for temporary custody under article IV. Therefore, the provisions of article IV are not applicable in this proceeding. Because the provision that only the governor of a sending state may deny a request for temporary custody is contained in article IV, there is no merit to Reed's contention that the wishes of Adams County officials to keep him in Illinois to face pending charges could not render him unable to stand trial in Nebraska. Moreover, because article V(a) requires that at the time a request for final disposition is made by a prisoner, the sending state shall offer to deliver temporary custody to the receiving state, Reed's reliance on the fact that the Menard facility offered temporary custody is also without significance. In support of his argument that the 180-day period was not tolled, Reed relies on State v. Steele, 261 Neb. 541, 624 N.W.2d 1 (2001), and State v. Meyer, 7 Neb.App. 963, 588 N.W.2d 200 (1998). We find these cases to be distinguishable. Steele does not address the unable to stand trial language of the Agreement. In Steele, the defendant was charged in Lancaster County on April 16, 1999, trial was set, and he was released on bond. Subsequently, Colorado filed a fugitive complaint against the defendant. On May 24, he waived extradition and was returned to Colorado. Nebraska authorities were aware of the extradition and took no steps to oppose it. The defendant subsequently brought a motion to discharge the Nebraska charges, alleging his statutory right to a speedy trial under Neb.Rev.Stat. § 29-1207 (Reissue 1995) had been violated. The State argued that the provisions of the Agreement were applicable and that under those provisions, the defendant's rights had not been violated. We concluded that once Nebraska filed the information and charged the defendant with the crime in April 1999, his statutory speedy trial rights under § 29-1207 were invoked and the provisions of the Agreement were not applicable. We further held that the defendant's voluntary waiver of extradition did not prevent Nebraska from refusing to surrender him to Colorado when Nebraska charges remained pending. We therefore concluded that the time period during which the defendant was in Colorado was not excluded and that the defendant's right to a speedy trial was violated. Steele is factually distinguishable from the instant case and provides no guidance on the issue of interpreting the unable to stand trial language of the Agreement. The only reported Nebraska appellate opinion interpreting the unable to stand trial language of the Agreement is Meyer, supra . In that case, the defendant was charged in Sarpy County on April 20, 1995, with burglary, theft by unlawful taking, and criminal mischief. At that time, the defendant was incarcerated in Iowa. On July 27, Sarpy County lodged a detainer against the defendant at the Iowa facility in which he was incarcerated. On March 24, 1997, the defendant filed an article III pro se notice of place of imprisonment and request for final disposition of the Sarpy County charges. The very next day, the defendant was granted parole in Iowa and released to the custody of Sarpy County on the detainer. A preliminary hearing was set for April 10, 1997, and the defendant was released on bond. He failed to appear at the preliminary hearing because, unbeknownst to Sarpy County officials, he had been taken into custody in Iowa on new charges on March 28. The defendant was sentenced on the Iowa charges on October 15 and incarcerated in Oakdale, Iowa. The defendant remained incarcerated until February 3, 1998. On that date, he was then arrested by the Sarpy County sheriff and brought back to Nebraska for arraignment on the April 20, 1995, complaint. On April 8, 1998, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss the charges due to an alleged violation of the 180-day period in the Agreement. The Nebraska Court of Appeals found that the 180-day period to bring the defendant to trial was triggered by his March 24, 1997, request for final disposition. Then, adopting the view of the majority of federal courts, it held that a defendant is unable to stand trial within the meaning of the Agreement during all those periods of delay occasioned by the defendant. State v. Meyer, 7 Neb.App. 963, 588 N.W.2d 200 (1998). The Court of Appeals determined that the defendant's reincarceration in Iowa was clearly a delay caused by him and that thus, the 180-day period was tolled either until he reappeared in Nebraska court or until he fully and completely advised Sarpy County of his exact whereabouts so that they could `go get him' pursuant to his request for final disposition. Id. at 971, 588 N.W.2d at 205. The court reasoned that a contrary holding would allow a defendant to seek final disposition of pending charges and then disappear for 180 days and cause the charges to be dismissed. Relying on Meyer, Reed argues that as long as Nebraska officials were aware of Reed's whereabouts in Adams County, they could go get him and that thus, the 180-day time period was not tolled because he was not unable to stand trial. Meyer, however, did not address what effect pending charges in the other jurisdiction would have on the rule announced, as the defendant in that case was simply incarcerated and not facing new charges in Iowa. Therefore, Meyer is not instructive in this case. Other state courts have addressed the unable to stand trial language of the Agreement in situations that are factually analogous to the instant case. In Johnson v. Commissioner of Correction, 60 Conn. App. 1, 758 A.2d 442 (2000), a prisoner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in which he sought to quash a detainer lodged against him by Massachusetts. The detainer was lodged while the prisoner was serving a burglary sentence in Connecticut, and the prisoner requested final disposition of the charge on July 5, 1996. Pursuant to the provisions of article III of the Agreement, the prisoner's request included an offer by Connecticut authorities to deliver temporary custody of the prisoner to Massachusetts. This offer was received by Massachusetts authorities on August 8. On August 16, 1996, however, while still incarcerated in Connecticut, the prisoner was charged with another Connecticut crime. Trial on this charge began on September 5, and the charge was finally resolved nearly a year later. In the meantime, however, on December 17, Massachusetts authorities had attempted to obtain temporary custody of the prisoner. Although it was not clear from the record, the district court found that it could be inferred that Massachusetts was denied custody at that time and that conversations between the respective prosecutors made it clear to Massachusetts officials that further efforts to obtain custody of the prisoner would not be fruitful until resolution of the new Connecticut charges. The court found that Connecticut's refusal to transfer the prisoner until the pending charges were resolved was justified and thus that while the prisoner was facing the pending charges in Connecticut, he was unable to stand trial in Massachusetts. It thus denied the prisoner's request for habeas relief. In State v. Cook, 330 N.J.Super. 395, 750 A.2d 91 (2000), New Jersey lodged a detainer against a defendant incarcerated in Pennsylvania. On April 7, 1988, New Jersey requested temporary custody of the defendant. At that time, the defendant had been sentenced on one of three Pennsylvania murder charges and was incarcerated pending disposition of the remaining charges. Pennsylvania authorities thus declined to offer temporary custody. On March 30, 1994, all proceedings in Pennsylvania concluded. The defendant was finally transported to New Jersey on June 8, 1994, and filed a motion to dismiss the charges based on violation of the Agreement. The court held that the defendant was not entitled to a dismissal of the charges because [o]utstanding charges pending in a sending state renders a defendant `unable to stand trial' in the receiving state under the [Agreement]. Cook, 330 N.J.Super. at 413, 750 A.2d at 101. In People v. Whitely, 143 Misc.2d 83, 539 N.Y.S.2d 652 (1989), New York lodged a detainer against a defendant serving a 2-year prison term in Connecticut. The defendant was simultaneously facing four separate charges then pending in Connecticut. The court held that the defendant was unable to stand trial in New York during the proceedings on the pending Connecticut charges, reasoning that the Agreement was never intended to benefit one who still had outstanding charges against him in the sending state, and that pending proceedings in the sending state can therefore be the basis for a tolling of the 180-day requirement under article III. In State v. Binn, 196 N.J.Super. 102, 481 A.2d 599 (1984), New Jersey filed a detainer against a prisoner incarcerated in New York. The prisoner requested speedy disposition of the New Jersey charges. New York, however, refused to offer temporary custody until pending charges in that state were resolved. The court rejected the prisoner's contention that because New York was expeditiously moving other pending charges against him after he served his request for final disposition of the New Jersey charges that those New Jersey charges must be dismissed, finding that the Agreement intended no such irrational result. Binn, 196 N.J.Super. at 108, 481 A.2d at 601-02. The court concluded that the prisoner was unable to stand trial in New Jersey because of the legitimate claim of New York to hold him to dispose of remaining New York charges. We find these authorities persuasive. Moreover, we note that other courts have held that while a prisoner is in the custody of one jurisdiction facing charges which he requested be speedily resolved under the Agreement, he is unable to stand trial in another jurisdiction in which he has also requested speedy resolution of pending charges. See, United States v. Mason, 372 F.Supp. 651 (N.D.Ohio 1973); Vaden v. State, 712 N.E.2d 522 (Ind.App.1999); State v. Maggard, 16 Kan.App.2d 743, 829 P.2d 591 (1992); State v. Wood, 241 N.W.2d 8 (Iowa 1976). These jurisdictions reason that a prisoner should not be able to manipulate the detainer process to his advantage and that his own actions in this regard make him unable to stand trial in both jurisdictions at the same time. Id. Although the instant case does not involve a simultaneous request for speedy disposition of charges in two jurisdictions, we find that the rationale articulated by these cases is applicable to the unique circumstances of this case. Thus, if one jurisdiction is actively prosecuting a defendant on current and pending charges, a defendant cannot be allowed to avoid pending charges in another jurisdiction simply by filing a request for final disposition under the Agreement, as clearly the defendant cannot stand trial in both jurisdictions at the same time. In such a situation, the defendant is unable to stand trial in the state in which he requested final disposition until resolution of the pending charges in the sending state. Based upon the cases cited above, we conclude that the district court did not err in finding that Reed was unable to stand trial in Nebraska during the time period he was facing pending charges in Illinois.