Document: 528 U.S. 110120 S.Ct. 659145 L.Ed.2d 560 SyllabusNOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as being done in connection with this case, at the time opinion issued. The constitutes no part of Court but has been prepared by Reporter Decisions for convenience reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES NEW YORKv.HILL CERTIORARI TO APPEALS YORK No. 98-1299. Argued November 2, 1999 Decided January 11, 2000 New York lodged detainer against respondent, an Ohio prisoner, under Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD). Respondent signed request disposition pursuant to IAD Article III and was returned face murder robbery charges. III(a) provides, inter alia, that, upon such request, prisoner must brought trial within 180 days, "provided that good cause shown , or his counsel present, court may grant any necessary reasonable continuance." Although respondent's initially agreed date set beyond 180-day period, respondent subsequently moved dismiss indictment, arguing IAD's limit had expired. In denying motion, concluded defense counsel's explicit agreement constituted waiver abandonment rights. After convicted both charges, Supreme Court, Appellate Division, affirmed court's refusal lack timely trial. State Appeals, however, reversed ordered indictment dismissed; later date, held, did not waive speedy Held: Defense outside period bars defendant from seeking dismissal ground occur period. This articulated general rule presumes availability waiver, Mezzanatto, 513 196, 200-201, recognized most basic rights criminal defendants are subject Peretz States, 501 923, 936. For certain fundamental rights, personally make informed scheduling matters plainly among those which generally controls. Requiring defendant's express assent routine often repetitive determinations would consume apparent purpose. text IAD, allowing "good-cause continuances" when either "prisoner counsel" contemplates questions left counsel. Art. (emphasis added). rejects arguments affirmance: (1) provision sole means extending period; (2) should allowed limits given they benefit only society generally; (3) can effected affirmative treatment contrary to, inconsistent with, limits. Pp. 3-8. 92 N. Y. 2d 406, 704 E. 542, reversed. Scalia, J., delivered unanimous Court. Opinion 1 NOTICE: formal revision before publication preliminary print Reports. Readers requested notify Decisions, Washington, D. C. 20543, typographical other errors, order corrections made goes press. 98-1299 YORK, PETITIONERv.MICHAEL HILL 2 ON WRIT OFNEW 3 [January 2000] 4 Justice Scalia 5 case presents question whether required because 6 * (IAD) compact entered into 48 District Columbia establish procedures resolution one State's outstanding charges another State. Crim. Proc. Law

Category: 0