Court Opinion

ID: 9539627
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:07:18.802194+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:59:04.828278
License: Public Domain

PARKS, Presiding Judge,
concurring in the result:
The resolution of petitioner’s claim requires a careful reading and integration of *207all the provisions of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act, 22 O.S.1981, § 1345 et seq. (hereinafter referred to as The Agreement). Only by reading the Agreement as a whole may its intent be properly discerned. See In Re Blain, 197 Okl. 459, 172 P.2d 795 (1946).
The Agreement is a somewhat unusual law. While it is an interstate compact among various jurisdictions, it also is a state statute. As such, it has been subject to widely varying interpretations by courts in the States joined by the compact.
I agree with the U.S. Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Agreement in United States v. Mauro, 436 U.S. 340, 98 S.Ct. 1834, 56 L.Ed.2d 329 (1978), where the Court said:
[W]e view Art. IV(c) as requiring commencement of trial within 120 days whenever the receiving State initiates the disposition of charges underlying a de-tainer it has previously lodged against a state prisoner. Any other reading of this section would allow the Governement to gain the advantages of lodging a detain-er against a prisoner without assuming the responsibilities that the Agreement intended to arise from such an action.
Id. at 364, 98 S.Ct. at 1849.
In Mauro, the United States, although a party to the Agreement, obtained custody of the defendant by virtue of a writ of habeas corpus ad 'prosequendum. Because this process was used, the Government argued that the time limits of the Agreement did not apply. In rejecting this argument, the Supreme Court did not consider, nor did the Government attempt to argue, that the many continuances may have resulted in an extension of the 120 day limit. The Government conceded that if the Agreement was applicable, the limit had been exceeded.
It may seem strange, considering the “good cause” language of art. IV(c), that the Court, in Mauro, did not even consider the possibility that the continuances may have resulted in an extension of the 120 day period. This is not surprising, however, when one considers, as did the Supreme Court, the history, purpose and language of the entire Agreement.
According to the Supreme Court, an examination of the history of the Agreement reveals that it was enacted to solve many of the problems which previously had been associated with the use of detainers. Some of these problems were noted in the reports of Congress when the Agreement was under consideration by the Federal Government:
The Attorney General has advised the committee that a prisoner who has had a detainer lodged against him is seriously disadvantaged by such action. He is in custody and therefore in no position to seek witnesses or to preserve his defense. He must often be kept in close custody and is ineligible for desirable work assignments. What is more, when detainers are filed against a prisoner he sometimes loses interest in institutional opportunities because he must serve his sentence without knowing what additional sentences may lie before him, or when, if ever, he will be in a position to employ the education and skills he may be developing.
H.R.Rep. No. 91-1018, p. 3 (1970); S.Rep. No. 91-1356, p. 3 (1970), U.S. Code Cong. & Admin.News 1970, pp. 4864, 4866.
Moreover, the Agreement itself sets forth its reasons and purposes, and states:
The party states find that charges outstanding against a prisoner, detainers based on untried indictments, informa-tions or complaints and difficulties in securing speedy trial of persons already incarcerated in other jurisdictions, produce uncertainties which obstruct programs of prisoner treatment and rehabilitation. Accordingly, it is the policy of the party states and the purpose of this agreement to encourage the expeditious and orderly disposition of such charges and determination of the proper status of any and all detainers based on untried indictments, informations or complaints.
22 O.S.1981, § 1347, art. I. Therefore, in order to avoid both “speedy trial” problems *208and a prolonging of the “uncertainties which obstruct programs of prisoner treatment and rehabilitation,” the Agreement places strict time limits on a receiving state’s right to hold a prisoner without trial. See 22 O.S.1981, § 1347, arts. III(c), IV(c). Failure of the State to bring an accused to trial “within the period provided” creates a mandatory obligation on the trial court to dismiss the Information with prejudice. 22 O.S.1981, § 1347, art. V(c). Furthermore, art. IX provides that the Agreement is to “be liberally construed so as to effectuate its purposes.” 22 O.S. 1981, § 1347, art. IX.
The drafters of the agreement obviously intended to discourage the indiscriminate filing of detainers. As noted above, the filing of a detainer has many adverse effects on the sending state’s administration of its rehabilitation programs. The drafters also sought to discourage a lengthy disruption of a prisoner’s term of incarceration. Removing a prisoner from his place of incarceration for an unknown and potentially lengthy period of time obliterates any opportunity for treatment or rehabilitation during that period. And, finally, dilatory prosecutions are directly opposed to an expeditious and orderly disposition of unresolved charges. Title 22 O.S.1981, § 1347, art. V(e) provides clear evidence of the drafter’s intent by stating:
At the earliest practicable time consonant with the purposes of this agreement, the prisoner shall be returned to the sending state.
Accordingly, I would hold that whenever the State has filed a detainer and requested custody of a prisoner, the State must proceed to bring him to trial within the 120 day period. The State may, for good cause, be granted reasonable and necessary continuances within that period, but in no event shall the continuances extend the commencement of trial beyond the 120 day period.
This interpretation of Article IV(c) is internally consistent with the other provisions of the Agreement. For example, there is one situation in which the Agreement specifically provides for an extension of the time limit, and that is “for as long as the prisoner is unable to stand trial.” 22 O.S.1981, § 1347, art. VI(a). The fact that the Agreement specifically provides for an extension in this single situation persuades us that the 120 day time limit is otherwise absolute.1 Inability to stand trial is only one of several good reasons used by trial judges in continuing trials in our jurisdiction. The fact the drafters chose to single out this lone cause as tolling the time limit implies the same extension is not applicable to any other delays. This is simply an application of the principle that the expression of one option in a statute implies the exclusion of others. See McCullick v. State, 682 P.2d 235, 236 (Okl.Cr.1984); State v. Smith, 539 P.2d 754, 757 (Okl.Cr. 1975). Furthermore, this strict construction of the statute is consistent with the command of art. V(e) that the prisoner should be returned to the sending state at the earliest practicable time. Providing an absolute 120 day limit guarantees an early return of the prisoner, and encourages the State to commence trial, at the earliest possible time within the 120 day period.
Under this interpretation of the 120 day time limit, the burden on the State is minimal. The State’s only obligation is to commence trial within the 120 day period. If the State is prepared at the time it requests temporary custody, 120 days is more than enough time for the completion of preliminary proceedings.

. The only other situation in which the time limit might be extended occurs when the accused specifically waives his right to a speedy trial, and requests an extension of the 120 day limit.