Document: 507 U.S. 43 113 S.Ct. 1085 122 L.Ed.2d 406 William FEX, Petitionerv.MICHIGAN. No. 91-7873. Argued Dec. 8, 1992. Decided Feb. 23, 1993. Syllabus * Indiana and Michigan are parties to the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD), Article III(a) of which provides that a prisoner one party State who is subject detainer lodged by another such must be brought trial within 180 days "after he shall have caused delivered" prosecuting officer appropriate court latter request for final disposition charges based. Petitioner Fex, in Indiana, was 196 after gave prison authorities 177 received prosecutor. His pretrial motion pursuant V(c) IAD, dismissal with prejudice if does not commence 180-day period, denied ground statutory period did begin until prosecutor his request. conviction set aside Court Appeals, held triggered transmittal officials. The Supreme summarily reversed. Held: It self evident no can "caused something unless delivery fact occurs. textual possibility still exists, however, once has been made, computed from date "caused" delivery. Although text ambiguous isolation, common-sense indications import related provisions compel conclusion prisoner's actually delivered jurisdiction against him. Delivery more likely choice triggering time limit than causation because former concept readily identifiable as point time. Moreover, trigger, consequence warden's delay forwarding will merely postponement starting clock, whereas total preclusion prosecution, even before knew it had requested. critical event confirmed IAD documentary evidence receipt (by requiring sent "by registered or certified mail, return requested," III(b)), but nowhere requires record when transmitted warden (if what constitutes "causation"). Finally, unlikely were would so indifferent manner transmittal. III(b) says only "shall given " (emphasis added). Fex's "fairness" "higher purpose" arguments appropriately addressed legislatures States adopted IAD. Pp. ---- - ----. 439 Mich. 117, 479 N.W.2d 625 (1992), affirmed. SCALIA, J., opinion Court, REHNQUIST, C.J., WHITE, O'CONNOR, KENNEDY, SOUTER, THOMAS, JJ., joined. BLACKMUN, filed dissenting opinion, STEVENS, John B. Payne, Jr., appointed this Dearborn, MI, petitioner. Jerrold Schrotenboer, Jackson, respondent. Richard H. Seamon, Washington, DC, amicus curiae special leave Court. Justice SCALIA 1 This case arises out "detainer," criminal justice agency institution incarcerated, asking agency, advised release imminent. Michigan, along 46 other States, District Columbia, United (IAD). See Ind.Code § 35-33-10-4 (1988); Mich.Comp.Laws 780.601 (1979); Pub.L. 91-538, 84 Stat. 1397-1403, 18 U.S.C.App. 2; 11 U.L.A. 213-214 (Supp.1992) (listing jurisdictions). Two interstate agreement give rise present suit: III V(c), forth margin.1 2 On February 29, 1988, petitioner charged Jackson County, armed robbery, possession firearm during felony, assault intent murder. At time, connection unrelated offenses at Westville Correctional Center Fort Wayne, Indiana. County Prosecuting Attorney therefore September 7, correctional informed detainer, them charges. 22, mailed petitioner's request; 26, Circuit it. Petitioner's began March 1989, officials authorities. 118, (1992) (per curiam ). 3 Prior trial, moved III(a). motion, reasoning prosecutor's office App. 36. convicted all except murder, "the commencement [petitioner's] [Indiana] officials." Id., 39. We granted certiorari. 504 ----, 112 1935, 118 542 (1992). 4 outcome turns upon meaning phrase, III(a), "within hundred eighty delivered." issue, specifically, whether, factual context us, phrase refers (1) notice (hereinafter simply "request") authorities; rather (2) "prosecutor") 5 Respondent argues That self-evidently true,2 we reject contention an commences gets lost mail never "receiving" (i.e., lodging see II(c)). leaves open possibility, that, computed, balance our discussion consider; convenience refer interpretation. 6 places great reliance provision's use future perfect tense ("shall delivered"). seems both interpretations: event), event) completed ("perfected") some (viewed IAD's adoption) under (expiration days). think acknowledged language literally bear either interpretation—i.e., crucial request, One almost induced accept interpretation basis words emphasized: versus delivered."3 7 Though alone indeterminate, resolution ambiguity found might called sense matter, provisions. As former: us believe "triggers" lies between, hand, and, prison. In fact, while option clearly identified term "delivered," there identification clear alternative end. If seeks determine moment later properly nothing law logic suggests placed hands warden. Perhaps fellow inmate deliver warden—or (Article warden" added)). legislature select, statute limitations, indeterminate "caused." makes respondent contends, key concept, paragraph (a) includes notion causality (rather referring "delivery" prisoner) precise, anticipating requirement (b) made initiation. 8 Another indication pointing same termed (in current political jargon) "worst-case scenarios" two interpretations Under respondent's interpretation, possible warden, through negligence malice, thus postpone clock. worst, checked about matter half year) learn several elapsed trial. result spend additional (which entails certain disabilities, disqualification rehabilitative programs, v. Mauro, 436 340, 359, 98 1834, 1846, 56 329 (1978)), delayed days.4 bad, is, worse regularly occurred adopted, any cannot entirely avoided embracing view measuring event. said, unquestionably delivery, entertain counting Thus, careless malicious may unable prevent entirely, failing forward More importantly, worst-case scenario produces results significantly worse: If, prosecution precluded knows possible, though means certain, could receiving court's invocation "good-cause continuance" clause III(a)5—but implausible plainly undesirable meant resort (largely discretionary) application provision. reasonable State's prosecutors risk losing their they 9 Indications confirm, view, starts most significant provision accompanying documents requested." State, (assuming considered act "causing"). peculiar date. clue, think, apparent indifference warden: A strange nonchalance, giving sending (either one) start days. avoids difficulty positing receipt, sending, clock—but that; surely "causing" considers central occurs sending. 10 policy argument "[f]airness burden compliance requirements enforcement involved, since little ability enforce compliance," Brief approach "frustrate higher leaving "neither legal nor practical length [request]," id., 20. These arguments, assume availability reading effect all. (Otherwise, remains power frustrate forwarding.) observed, susceptible reading. are, words, contracting text. Our second question presented petition writ certiorari; concluded grant first improvident, do reach issue presents. hold him judgment 12 ordered. 13 whom STEVENS joins, dissenting. 14 I am persuaded ambiguous. majority search literal contested comes down unresolvable contest between emphasizes word "delivered." But contains least significant. favors "he." clock begins he—the —"shall caused" delivered. focus act, complete transmits last said done anything "have Any renders "he superfluous. 15 Even clear, read suggests. highly Contrary majority's interpretations," ante, logical way express idea perfected applies say vastly simple, delivery." 16 construction intentional supported drafting history When Council Governments proposed governing detainers, also model legislation intrastate detainers. suggested Legislation, Program 1957, pp. 77-78 (1956). Both proposals contained virtually identical 77. stated proposal "based substantially statutes operative California Oregon." 76. Critically, neither referred prisoner. Oregon required 90 receipt" district attorney notice, Act Apr. 1955, ch. 387, 2(1), 1955 Ore.Laws 435, ninety [he] prosecutor, May 28, 1931, 486, 1, 1931 Cal.Stats. 1060. insists here, Tr. Oral Arg. 37, Council's somehow convey "actual receipt," then drafters' failure follow uncomplicated offered puzzling extreme. asked oral failure, counsel replied problem using verb receive that. . [t]hat shift away prisoner, vital role initiates process." 41. submit precisely point, reason drafters used action inmate. 17 Nevertheless, finds disputed ambiguous, exhibits interest Instead, asserts answer matter." Ibid. prevails arena "sense," well. 19 turn assumption Because warden," attacks illogical negligent warden—who operation rule request—could premise flawed. Obviously, anticipates actual Art. promptly, marking written fashion contemplates mean apply assumes its signatories abide terms, find construed well unanticipated bad faith.1 20 own faithful purposes primary purpose protect prosecutors' calendars, prosecutions, provide swift resolving uncertainties alleviating disabilities created outstanding I; Carchman Nash, 473 716, 720, 105 3401, 3403, 87 516 (1985); Note, Effect Violations Subject Matter Jurisdiction, 54 Ford.L.Rev. 1209, 1210, n. (1986). allowed stretch into 200 250 350 days, defeated. 21 each Court's decisions construing relied emphasized U.S., 729-734, S.Ct., 3408-3410; Cuyler Adams, 449 433, 448-450, 101 703, 711-712, 66 641 (1981); 361-362, 1848, (1978). majority, gives short shrift, focusing instead scenarios," assessment harms assumptions appear underlie inquiry. cursory conditional nature concession "is IAD," ----—is spending extra relatively minor. take seriously harm suffered further offhand insensitive description impact status. To faces "certain programs," understate profoundly. pointed supra, bears very heavy burden: 22 '[T]he deprived opportunity obtain sentence run concurrently being served filed; classified maximum close custody risk; (3) ineligible initial assignments less security prisons honor farms forestry camp work); (4) trustee [sic ] status; (5) live preferred living quarters dormitories; (6) study-release programs work-release programs; (7) transferred medium minimum institutions system, removal transfer youthful offenders; (8) entitled jobs carry wages entitle [him] good credits [his] sentence; (9) inhibited denial parole commutation (10) anxiety hindered overall rehabilitation process advantage institutional opportunities.' 730, 3408, quoting Cooper Lockhart, 489 F.2d 308, 314, (CA8 1973). 23 substantial well-recognized. See, e.g., Smith Hooey, 393 374, 379, 89 575, 577, 607 (1969); Ford, 550 732, 737-740 (CA2 1977) (citing cases), aff'd sub nom. (1978); L. Abramson, Criminal 29-34 Ford.L.Rev., 12. important purposes, creation place. sanguine reassurance delays "bad," "no adopted," perplexing. prisoners off proves all, perhaps nullifies ends achieve. task, negate interpret task impossible without proper understanding seriousness regards damage unnecessarily long periods spent detainer. 24 misunderstanding stakes inmate's side scale matched miscalculation State. widely fraction detainers ultimately imprisonment. J. Gobert & N. Cohen, Rights Prisoners 284 Dauber, Reforming Detainer System: Case Study, Crim.L.Bull. 669, 689-690 (1971); uncommon withdrawn just prior completion sentence. 729-730, 3408; 12; Comment, Created, Akron L.Rev. 691, 692 (1985). All too often, groundlessly faith, 358, 25, solely harassment, seeCarchman 729, 6, 6. For reason, intended 'with procedure bringing prompt test substantiality jurisdictions.' (quoting House Senate Reports). 25 observations—that onerous paradigmatic new conviction—suggest assessed interests underlies design. Particularly light IX's command liberally effectuate purposes," countenances lengthy sustain. 26 emphasize somewhat obvious supervision over Once handed authorities, motion. Houston Lack, 487 266, 108 2379, 245 (1988), pro se appeal "filed" conveyed court. powerlessness, inmate-initiated serves useful incentive requests speedily. Solicitor General better position ensure forwarded because, example, insist provided proof Amicus Curiae 16-17. me severely touch reality. demands expected generate degree concern inquiries sister reciprocal nature, signatories, press speedy turnaround strength, far able meet deadline.2 27 lever move enable know fate eliminate burdensome conditions. remove beneficiary Accordingly, dissent. syllabus part prepared Reporter Decisions reader. Detroit Lumber Co., 321, 337, 282, 287, 50 L.Ed. 499. Title full original article numbers, there. relevant follows: "(a) Whenever person entered imprisonment penal whenever continuance pending untried indictment, information, complaint officer's place complaint: Provided, That, cause shown court, present, having necessary continuance. accompanied certificate official stating commitment held, already served, remaining sentence, amount earned, eligibility decision relating "(b) hereof commissioner corrections, him, promptly together "(c) inform source contents right make based." provides, part: "[I]n hereof, where enter order dismissing prejudice, based thereon cease force effect." Not, dissent: "The Post, Of course understates "written delivery," Hamlet 16th-century dress. Causation condition operation—and dissent whether caused. 'after delivered.' reformulation changes respects perfected: First, indicative ("after caused") caused"), omits occur deadline, future. Second, infinitive ("to delivered") delivered"), adds utterly fascinating causing receipt. omission futurity addition antecedence differences saying, hostages treated" treated." cases treatment established, dissent's established. contends puts "on warden." "causing Nor agree running "superfluous." sets stage succeeding paragraph, making reader (as clarify) providing. There substance assertion "reason[s] creation" "deprived filed." (citations internal quotations omitted). Since require filed, achieve concurrent sentencing obviously accidental scheme objective. unaware studies showing judges willing impose sentences circumstances) credit out-of-state logically should be), obtaining ordinarily zero value. Some courts requested expired. Dennett Md.App. 376, 381, 311 A.2d 437, 440 (1973) Hoss 266 Md. 136, 143, 292 48, 51 (1972)); Commonwealth Fisher, 451 Pa. 102, 106, 301 605, (1973); Patterson, 273 S.C. 361, 363, 256 S.E.2d 417, 418 (1979). see, Lippolis, 107 N.J.Super. 137, 147, 257 705, 711 (App.Div.1969), rev'd, 55 N.J. 354, 262 203 (1970) ) (reversing Appellate Division). point. aggrieved flagrant violation remedies available. Courts Appeals split violation's cognizability habeas. Compare, Kerr Finkbeiner, 757 604 (CA4), cert. denied, 474 929, 106 263, 88 269 (1985) (denying habeas relief), Williams, 615 585, 590 (CA3 1980) (IAD cognizable habeas). generally M. Mushlin F. Merritt, 324 (Supp.1992); 1212-1215 (1986); Federal Habeas Corpus Review Nonconstitutional Errors: Cognizability Detainers, 83 Colum.L.Rev. 975 (1983). argument, respectively, failures 42 U.S.C. 1983 suit, 33, mandamus action, 44. "a fulfilling duty pressure IAD." nevertheless legitimate dismissed small mandated diligent surprised late arrival expect circumstances, good-cause order. (I acknowledge, points out, 2, refused expiration period.) solution "implausible," plausible regime "insist" recalcitrant quickly.

Category: 0