Opinion ID: 2003603
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: was a detainer lodged against appellant?

Text: To answer the question of whether Appellant has demonstrated that a detainer was filed, we must first determine what constitutes a detainer. Our research has failed to find a definition for detainer, as used in the context of KRS 500.110, in either Kentucky's statutory or case law. Interestingly, neither the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (hereinafter IAD) nor the Uniform Mandatory Disposition of Detainers Act (hereinafter UMDDA) contain a definition for detainer. For the purpose of establishing a procedure to carry out the provisions of the IAD, however, the Kentucky Department of Corrections has adopted a definition for detainer: Detainer means a written notification filed by a criminal justice or law enforcement agency with the institution where an inmate is serving a sentence, advising that the inmate is wanted in connection with a criminal offense, and requesting the institution to hold the inmate or to notify the agency when the inmate is about to be released. The detainer may have documents attached in support, such as an indictment or other charging instruments, a court bench warrant, a parole violation warrant, or an escape warrant. A Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Prosecundum or a Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificundum issued by a Federal Court is not a detainer. [3] And, in Fex v. Michigan, [4] the United States Supreme Court, in an IAD case, described a detainer as a request filed by a criminal justice agency with the institution in which a prisoner is incarcerated, asking that the prisoner be held for the agency, or that the agency be advised when the prisoner's release is imminent. [5] In Tucker v. United States, [6] the District of Columbia Court of Appeals offered further guidance as to the nature of a detainer: [A]n arrest warrant will serve as a detainer within the purview of the IAD if: 1) it is based on an untried information, indictment, or complaint; 2) it is filed by a criminal justice agency; 3) it is filed directly with the facility where a prisoner is incarcerated; 4) it notifies prison officials that a prisoner is wanted to face pending charges; and 5) it asks the institution where the prisoner is incarcerated either to hold the prisoner at the conclusion of the prisoner's sentence, or to notify agency officials when the prisoner's release is imminent. Where all five of these criteria are satisfied, an arrest warrant is plainly lodged as a detainer, and the provisions of the IAD come into play. [7] Although each of the above authorities address the definition of detainer in the context of the IAD, we find those definitions well-suited for application to KRS 500.110. The limited record before us demonstrates only that Roederer received from the circuit court a copy of the felony indictment against Appellant, one of its inmates. In particular, there is no evidence in this record that any criminal justice agency ever asked a Kentucky correctional institution where Appellant was incarcerated to hold Appellant at the conclusion of his sentence and/or to notify it when Appellant's release was imminent. Accordingly, we agree with the Court of Appeals's conclusion that Appellant has failed to prove that a detainer was lodged against him, and thus has not demonstrated his entitlement to the relief he seeks.