Court Opinion

ID: 9722090
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 09:16:42.671075+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:30.629983
License: Public Domain

ROBB, Judge,
dissents with opinion.
I respectfully dissent. I disagree with the majority's conclusion that "a defendant whose case is midstream in one county and who is subsequently arrested on unrelated charges in another county must provide formal written notice of his incarceration to the court and the State to avoid the tolling of the Rule 4(C) clock." Op. at 81. In this particular case, I would hold that written notice is not required and would hold that the oral notice provided by Wer-ner was sufficient to keep the Rule 4(C) clock running.
As the majority acknowledges, there is no formal written notification requirement. I acknowledge that written notice is the easiest and best proof that notice has in fact been given, and I understand the difficulties that could be encountered if we held that oral notification was sufficient in all cases. Thus, if there is a dispute about whether notice has been given, I agree that notification in writing would be required. But in this case, there seems to be no dispute that the trial court received one or both of the telephone calls made on Werner's behalf to inform the court of his incarceration in Wayne County. Under these circumstances, I would hold that Werner sufficiently notified the trial court of his incarceration and would not charge him with the 142 days in question. I would accordingly hold that Werner's trial date was set outside the Rule 4(C) period, and reverse the trial court's denial of his motion for discharge.