Opinion ID: 1966794
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act

Text: Despite our previous holdings, defendant Werner now invites us to reconsider the wisdom of our decisions in Werner I, Werner II , and Werner III, and hold that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss based on the state's failure to comply with the requirements of the IADA. In this present appeal, Werner contends either (1) that the state failed to bring him to trial within the 180-day time frame of Article III of the IADA; or (2) that the state failed to accept custody of Werner within the timeframe of Article IV of the IADA. [6] However, with respect to both of these contentions, we simply direct defendant to our opinions in his previous appeals. With respect to Werner's Article III claim, that his March 10, 1993 petition for habeas corpus served to invoke his IADA rights, and consequently triggered the 180-day requirement of Article III, we must refer defendant to our decision in Werner I. There, we held specifically that the writ of habeas corpus issued by another justice of the Superior Court on April 5, 1993, did not constitute an effective detainer (nor did it purport to do so) and did not trigger any obligation either by Massachusetts or Rhode Island to return Mr. Werner to this jurisdiction. Werner I, 831 A.2d at 194. Alternately, Werner claims that the trial justice improperly labeled his case an Article III case, and that under its rightful Article IV label, the case must be dismissed for the state's failure to take custody within a reasonable time. But, we already have addressed this argument and point defendant to our decision in Werner I, in which we upheld the trial justice's findings of law and fact, including her decision that Rhode Island had sought custody of Werner pursuant to IADA Article III, and not Article IV. Even as he argues these decided points anew, Werner acknowledges that we have already addressed his concerns and decided these very same issues. Under the doctrine of collateral estoppel, `when an issue of ultimate fact has once been determined by a valid and final judgment, that issue cannot again be litigated between the same parties in any future lawsuit.' State v. Santiago, 847 A.2d 252, 254 (R.I.2004) (quoting State v. Hie, 688 A.2d 283, 284 (R.I.1996)). For collateral estoppel to apply and bar a party from relitigating an issue, there must be (1) an identity of issues, (2) the previous proceeding must have resulted in a final judgment on the merits, and (3) the party against whom collateral estoppel is asserted must be the same or in privity with a party in the previous proceeding. Id. Courts apply the doctrine while allowing for exceptions in situations in which application would lead to inequitable results. See Foster-Glocester Regional School Committee v. Board of Review, 854 A.2d 1008, 1014 (R.I.2004). In Werner's case, all three elements of collateral estoppel are present to bar the present suit, and we see no reason why application of the doctrine would lead to inequitable results. Therefore, despite defendant's offer, we decline an additional bite at this apple.