Opinion ID: 2636528
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Fifteen-month delay from indictment to locating Defendant

Text: {14} The State argues that this period of fifteen months should not weigh against the State because the State was unaware of Defendant's whereabouts. Relying on Urban, the Court of Appeals held that the State was required to do more than merely claim that it was unaware of Defendant's location; the State should have affirmatively explained why it could not reasonably have been expected to bring Defendant to trial during that time. Maddox, 2007-NMCA-102, ¶ 18, 142 N.M. 400, 166 P.3d 461. We agree with the Court of Appeals that the record is largely undeveloped with regard to this fifteen-month period. {15} We have previously charged the State with constructive knowledge of the whereabouts of individuals in the State's custody. Urban, 2004-NMSC-007, ¶ 15, 135 N.M. 279, 87 P.3d 1061. We did so on the premise that the State could have located [the defendant] simply by placing a phone call to the Department of Corrections' Central Records Office. Id. (alterations in original) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In Urban and Zurla, this Court held that the State may not claim mere negligence in failing to locate an accused when the technology to do so is available. Urban, 2004-NMSC-007, ¶ 15, 135 N.M. 279, 87 P.3d 1061; Zurla, 109 N.M. at 643, 789 P.2d at 591. {16} However, Defendant's incarceration in another jurisdiction distinguishes this case from Urban and Zurla. In Urban, we required the State to offer a reasonable explanation why it was not awareor why it could not have become awarethat Defendant was in its custody. 2004-NMSC-007, ¶ 15, 135 N.M. 279, 87 P.3d 1061. We charged the State with constructive knowledge of the whereabouts of individuals in the State's custody because the State could call the Department of Corrections Central Records Office or search their website, which was open to the public, to search for the location of inmates. Id. {17} In this case, Defendant's criminal actions in another jurisdiction caused his incarceration in the Florida prison and locating him was not as simple. While the State lodged a detainer against Defendant with the Florida prison on December 13, 2002, it did so for a probation violation unrelated to the indictment filed in this case. The only other information available as to when the State became aware of Defendant's location in Florida was from an email conversation between the State and defense counsel that occurred from April 18-24, 2003. In response to defense counsel's appearance filed on March 10, 2003, the State sent an email to defense counsel on April 18, 2003. The email stated: You filed an entry on this guy. We don't have a record that the [bench warrant] was served. Do you know where this guy is? If so, he needs to have the [bench warrant] served and/or request an arraignment. Defense counsel responded: He's in a Florida prison. The State then asked: Do you know which prison, so I can tell the case worker [and] get the [bench warrant] served? Under these circumstances, the State was permitted to wait for the arrest of the individual and the return of the warrant before taking further action. Therefore, we do not charge the State with constructive knowledge of Defendant's location and do not weigh this time period against the State.