Opinion ID: 2090688
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Merits of Statutory Speedy Trial Claim

Text: Section 29-3802 requires that the Director of Correctional Services must promptly inform, in writing, each prisoner in the custody of the Department of Correctional Services of any untried indictment, information, or complaint against him or her in this state, of which the director has knowledge. In this case, the record is silent as to whether the Director of Correctional Services was aware of the charge pending against Tucker in Lancaster County, and if so, whether he informed Tucker of the charge. However, the record is clear that Tucker had actual knowledge of the pending charge. See State v. Ebert, 235 Neb. 330, 455 N.W.2d 165 (1990). Section 29-3803 provides in part that [a]ny person who is imprisoned in a facility operated by the Department of Correctional Services may request in writing to the director final disposition of any untried indictment, information, or complaint pending against him or her in this state. Upon receipt of such a request, the director must issue a certificate informing the prosecutor of the prisoner's status, notify the court in which the untried charges are pending of the prisoner's request for final disposition, and offer to deliver temporary custody of the prisoner to that jurisdiction. § 29-3803; State v. Ebert, supra . Section 29-3804 provides that a prosecutor who has lodged a detainer against an instate prisoner may request that he or she be made available for trial, in which case the director is required to issue a certificate advising the prosecutor of the prisoner's status within the department and must also [o]ffer to deliver temporary custody of the prisoner to the appropriate authority in the city or county where the untried indictment, information, or complaint is pending .... § 29-3804(2). See, also, State v. Ebert, supra . Notably, this section does not require a prosecutor to file a detainer against any prisoner, and the filing of a detainer is not required in order for a prisoner to assert his or her right to a speedy trial pursuant to § 29-3803. State v. Ebert, supra . Moreover, a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum is not synonymous with a detainer. See State v. Williams, 253 Neb. 619, 573 N.W.2d 106 (1997). It is a prosecutor's receipt of the statutorily required certificate from the Director of Correctional Services pursuant to § 29-3803 or § 29-3804 which triggers the 180-day period for disposition of untried charges prescribed by § 29-3805. State v. Ebert, supra ; State v. Soule, 221 Neb. 619, 379 N.W.2d 762 (1986). In the present case, the record does not reflect that Tucker ever submitted a request to the Director of Correctional Services pursuant to § 29-3803 or that the prosecutor initiated the procedure set forth in § 29-3804, nor does it appear that the Director of Correctional Services ever issued the certificate required by those statutes. Accordingly, the 180-day period set forth in § 29-3805 was never triggered, and Tucker's statutory speedy trial claim is without merit.