Dotson v. State
2013 Ark. 382
| Ark. | 2013Background
- In 1999 Dotson was arrested on drug charges; he was released on own recognizance April 3, 2000, with trial set for June 26, 2000.
- In May 2000 Dotson sent a letter stating he had been extradited to New York and gave his Monroe County Jail address; the letter was placed on the record and provided to counsel and the prosecutor.
- The State did not file a detainer while Dotson was incarcerated in New York; Dotson was released from New York custody on June 16, 2000.
- Dotson did not appear for the June 26, 2000 trial; an arrest warrant issued and was apparently served December 31, 2009; he later pled guilty in 2010 pursuant to a negotiated plea (aggregate 120 months).
- Dotson filed a timely Rule 37.1 postconviction petition alleging (inter alia) a speedy-trial violation based on the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD) and ineffective assistance for failing to raise the IAD argument; the trial court denied relief and this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Dotson's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the IAD apply to trigger a 180-day trial period? | IAD applied because Dotson gave notice of New York incarceration and the State should have filed a detainer. | IAD does not apply because no detainer was lodged for the charged offenses; the Act’s protections only trigger after a detainer exists. | IAD did not apply; no detainer was lodged, so Article III(a) time limits do not attach. |
| Was Dotson’s speedy-trial right violated by the delay from June 26, 2000 to arrest? | Time from June 26, 2000 to arrest should not be excluded because State failed to file a detainer. | Delay was properly excluded/handled because IAD did not apply; no speedy-trial violation shown. | No speedy-trial violation proved; appeal fails on this claim. |
| Was counsel ineffective for failing to raise the IAD/detainer argument? | Counsel rendered ineffective assistance by not asserting the IAD-based speedy-trial claim before plea. | The underlying IAD claim lacked merit, so failure to raise it cannot satisfy Strickland prejudice. | Counsel not ineffective; Dotson did not show a meritorious underlying claim or resulting prejudice. |
| Are Dotson’s additional constitutional claims cognizable in Rule 37.1 proceeding? | Plea was accepted after permitted time; due-process and equal-protection violations flow from IAD theory. | Constitutional claims rest on the inapplicable IAD; Rule 37.1 review limited and claims lack merit. | Claims fail; IAD inapplicable and any constitutional claims premised on it lack merit; appeal dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Polivka v. State, 362 S.W.3d 918 (Ark. 2010) (limits on Rule 37.1 review of guilty-plea challenges; generally requires voluntariness or ineffective assistance)
- Grant v. United States, 856 A.2d 1131 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (IAD applies only when a detainer has been lodged; IAD does not itself require filing a detainer)