Court Opinion

ID: 9723791
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 10:32:18.194122+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:52.056967
License: Public Domain

*172Dissenting Opinion
DeBruler, J.
I agree with the dicussion in the majority
opinion of the case of Smith v. Hooey (1969), 393 U. S. 374, 21 L. Ed. 607, including the guidelines set down therein which are hereafter to be used by our courts in implementing the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial.
I dissent to the adjudication by this Court of the petitioner’s constitutional claim that this State has denied him his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial and that he is entitled to have the pending charges against him dismissed and to have the detainer warrant against him withdrawn from the records of the Utah State Prison wherein petitioner is presently incarcerated. The papers in this Court in this case consist of the following:
(1) A jumbled one-page petition prepared without assistance of counsel and signed by petitioner, which petition contains no factual allegations.
(2) A letter of transmittal directed to this Court by the Delaware County Prosecutor to which are attached copies of six letters and the prosecutor’s application to the Governor of Indiana for rendition of the petitioner.
One of the letters from the office of the Governor of Utah dated July 2, 1969, reads as follows:
“Dear Mr. Burns Re: Extradition of
David Taylor Smeltzer
Our Governor’s Authorization for Extradition is in the hands of the Records Officer at the Utah State Prison. Your request for transfer of this man to Indiana for trial and return under the Utah State Detainer Agreement has been approved and he is ready at your convenience for transfer.
Sorry we misunderstood the basis of your request for extradition. We will be most happy to cooperate in any way we can to see this through to completion.
Sincerely,
s/Marjorie S. Boyd
Mrs. Marjorie S. Boyd
Extradition Clerk”
*173It is not possible for me to adjudicate the petitioner’s constitutional claim on the basis of what is before this Court. The petitioner’s pleading has not been responded to and the legal issues are unclear. We do not know whether we are being asked to review the actions of the Governor of Indiana, the Attorney General of Indiana, the Prosecuting Attorney, or some trial court, or all of them. We do not even know whether this claim has been presented to a trial court. There is no record. There are no affidavits. There are no legal arguments. Would the majority grant this petition for dismissal without giving the State an evidentiary hearing, in the event they felt the petition was well taken in its present form?
In order to put this case in the proper posture for a decision, I would refer the petition to the Public Defender of Indiana and direct her to ascertain whether the petitioner is without funds to employ counsel, and if he is, to represent petitioner’s constitutional claim in this and any other court she may deem necessary. I would notify the Attorney General of Indiana and the prosecuting attorney of that referral and request them to respond to petitioner’s claim.
Jackson, J., concurs.
Note. — Reported in 258 N. E. 2d 647.