Dominique Dontae Lasker v. State
577 S.W.3d 583
| Tex. App. | 2019Background
- Dominique Dontae Lasker was indicted in Waller County (March 2010 murders) while serving federal time in California; federal sentence imposed December 2011.
- Waller County filed detainers; Lasker submitted an Article III IADA "request for final disposition" directly to Waller County in July 2012 (not sent by prison warden nor with required custodial certificate by registered mail).
- Prison warden forwarded a properly completed IADA packet (including a certificate) to Waller County, received February 8, 2013 (Lasker’s second Article III request).
- Lasker was returned to Waller County May 24, 2013; court appointed counsel June 4, 2013; hearings occurred but no trial within 180 days of Feb 8, 2013.
- The State sought continuances and indicated intent to seek death; the trial court granted a continuance citing Article IV and other reasons but the record lacked an express, open-court IADA continuance showing good cause for the period June–Sept 2013.
- Lasker pleaded guilty October 2, 2017 but reserved right to appeal denial of his IADA dismissal motions; the Court of Appeals reversed, holding the 180‑day Article III deadline expired Aug 7, 2013 and dismissal with prejudice was required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lasker triggered Article III’s 180‑day clock | Lasker: second IADA request (sent via warden, with certificate, by registered mail) satisfied Article III, so State had 180 days from Feb 8, 2013 to try him | State: certificate omitted parole‑eligibility and parole decision fields; plaintiff’s first direct July 2012 submission was defective; continuances tolled clock | Court: Second request forwarded by warden satisfied Article III; 180‑day period ran Feb 8–Aug 7, 2013 and was not tolled |
| Whether continuances tolled Article III deadline | Lasker: no valid IADA continuance was granted in open court with good cause and presence of counsel, so deadlines ran | State: June 4, 2013 appointment/reset to allow counsel amounted to a necessary continuance and tolled the period | Court: Continuance requirements under IADA were not met (no motion, no open‑court finding of good cause); unexplained delay cannot toll the IADA deadline |
Key Cases Cited
- Alabama v. Bozeman, 533 U.S. 146 (U.S. 2001) (IADA is a congressionally sanctioned compact and construed under federal law)
- Fex v. Michigan, 507 U.S. 43 (U.S. 1993) (definition and effect of detainers and evidentiary value of registered/certified mail receipts)
- Votta v. State, 299 S.W.3d 130 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (summary of IADA purpose and Articles III/IV requirements)
- Birdwell v. Skeen, 983 F.2d 1332 (5th Cir. 1993) (IADA continuance requirements: open court, presence, good cause, reasonableness)
- Walker v. State, 201 S.W.3d 841 (Tex. App.—Waco 2006) (prisoner meets Article III obligation by delivering request to warden for forwarding)
- State v. Chestnut, 424 S.W.3d 213 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2014) (prisoner’s delivery to warden can satisfy Article III even if warden fails to forward)
- Norton v. Parke, 892 F.2d 476 (6th Cir. 1989) (strict literal compliance with Article III not required when prisoner does all he can and custodial authorities default)