Opinion ID: 1304506
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: defendant's departure

Text: For purposes of the case now before us, the events that occurred next are particularly important. On April 22, 1983, the defendant requested speedy disposition of charges lodged against him in Michigan under provisions of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act, § 24-60-501 et seq., 10 C.R.S. (1982). Under this agreement, an imprisoned defendant can petition for speedy disposition of detainers based on untried charges against him in other states; such a request operates as a waiver of extradition and triggers certain deadlines by which the defendant must be tried or the charges dismissed. On May 19, pursuant to the defendant's request, he was removed to Michigan for trial there. Two days before he departed, however, defendant's counsel appeared in the Denver court and the case was again continued until June 10, 1983. The court tendered to defense counsel on this occasion a speedy trial waiver form for the defendant's signature. At this hearing, certain matters were discussed by counsel and the court, but the written summary of this hearing contains no mention that the court or district attorney were advised of defendant's imminent departure to Michigan. In fact, the record shows that even defendant's attorney was unaware at this point that the defendant planned to depart for Michigan. The summary does not contain any indication that the court was notified that the defendant had undergone any change of mind about his tentative plea agreement or would demand speedy resolution of the Denver charges. The written summary of the next hearing, more than a month later, on June 29, 1983, indicates that the sheriff's office advised the court that the defendant had been transferred to Michigan. The district attorney offered to try to locate the defendant in Michigan. Later that summer, on August 9, 1983, defendant's counsel appeared before the court and waived on behalf of the defendant his speedy trial rights through February 8, 1984. Counsel frankly admitted that he had had no conversation or correspondence from the defendant in several months and that he had sent waiver forms for the defendant to sign on two occasions, but they had not been returned. Counsel told the court once again: I can represent to the Court that it was my understanding, and again I have had no instructions to the contrary, that again there is strictly going to be a plea in this case. There is not going to be a trial of any sort to the best of my knowledge; we are merely waiting for ... the appeal that's presently pending before the [supreme court]. The trial court accepted this waiver and ordered that an alias capias issue for the defendant as a detainer and that the defendant be brought back to court forthwith upon his return to Colorado. On December 17, 1983, the defendant was returned to Colorado from Michigan. On December 28, 1983, he was brought back to the Denver court. On this occasion, defendant tendered a pro se motion to dismiss the charges against him based on an alleged failure by Colorado prison officials to promptly notify him of the Denver charges against him after they became aware of the charges in late 1982 or early 1983. The record contains no explanation for this surprising motion in light of the continual and long-standing representations by the defendant that he would enter the plea agreement. Defense counsel apparently indicated that he could not partake in arguing this motion. Defense counsel also informed the court that the defendant would seek another continuance if the motion were denied. The trial court indicated it would refuse such a continuance and set January 16, 1984, as the date for jury trial. The court ruled at this point that the speedy trial deadline would run on February 8, 1984. On January 10, 1984, a hearing was held on defendant's motion to dismiss, at which the defendant argued, on his own behalf, why provisions of the Uniform Mandatory Disposition of Detainers Act (Detainers Act), §§ 16-14-101 et seq., 8 C.R.S. (1978), required dismissal of the charges. The trial court agreed, and granted defendant's pro se motion. Thereafter, the People appealed, and on June 24, 1985, we reversed the trial court's decision and remanded the case with instructions to reinstate the charges against the defendant. People v. Yellen, 704 P.2d 306 (Colo.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 106 S.Ct. 603, 88 L.Ed.2d 582 (1985). Subsequently, the defendant's petition for a writ of certiorari from the United States Supreme Court was denied, and our mandate of reversal issued on October 17, 1985. It was received by the Denver court the next day. On November 7, 1985, the defendant and his counsel appeared in court again. A transcript of the hearing indicates that at this point defendant was clearly contemplating taking the matter to trialeven though by this date we had decided the defendant's Arapahoe County habeas corpus appeal. See Yellen v. Nelson, 680 P.2d 234 (Colo.1984). Defense counsel informed the court of various motions to be filed, and the court set a hearing for November 19 on a renewed motion by the defendant for dismissal. Counsel and the court discussed when the 90-day deadline for trial under provisions of the Detainers Act would expire, and the court set a trial date of December 9, which all parties appeared to agree would be within the 90-day time limit. The six-month speedy trial provisions in section 18-1-405, 8 C.R.S. (1978), were referred to, but apparently no one believed that those provisions would be violated by the December 9 trial date, and there was no explicit discussion of the applicable deadline under that statute. On November 19, 1985, another hearing was held, and defendant's renewed motion to dismiss was denied by the trial court. Subsequently, the defendant sought a writ of prohibition and mandamus from this court to review that decision, but we denied his request on November 27, 1985. At the November 19 hearing, the defendant, speaking again on his own behalf, also raised a question concerning his speedy-trial rights under section 18-1-405. The court, counsel and defendant discussed the matter and expressed various views, but it is evident from the record that there was considerable confusion due to the lengthy and convoluted history of the proceedings. The court requested the defendant to provide written clarification of his position, which the defendant provided by means of another motion to dismiss.