Greene v. State
332 S.W.3d 239
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- Greene was charged in Holt County in 2005 with second-degree burglary (class C).
- While incarcerated for other offenses, Greene sent a September 2005 written request to the DOC seeking 180-day disposition of Holt County charges, which DOC treated as lacking a detainer.
- Appointed counsel filed a December 2005 motion for speedy disposition; the trial court held a hearing in June 2006 and denied the motion to dismiss.
- Greene pleaded guilty to second-degree burglary on June 9, 2006, with a three-year term; sentence to run concurrent with Livingston County and Nodaway County sentences.
- Greene later filed a Rule 24.035 post-conviction motion alleging lack of UMDDL-compliant disposition and jurisdiction; after an evidentiary hearing, the motion court denied relief.
- The Western District affirmed, holding no de facto detainer existed and the plea waived nonjurisdictional UMDDL issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Greene's September 2005 DOC letter constitute proper UMDDL demand? | Greene | Greene | No; no detainer, no proper written demand to court and prosecutor. |
| Whether the UMDDL compliance issue is jurisdictional or waivable via guilty plea. | Greene | State | Noncompliance is a legal matter, not jurisdiction; guilty plea waives nonjurisdictional errors; court had jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Carson v. State, 997 S.W.2d 92 (Mo. App. 1999) (detainer concept affirmed via proper notice to court and prosecutor)
- Long v. State, 870 S.W.2d 933 (Mo. App. 1994) (detainer considerations predate statutory detainer requirement)
- Dillard v. State, 931 S.W.2d 157 (Mo. App. 1996) (substantial compliance standard for UMDDL requests)
- State v. Williams, 120 S.W.3d 294 (Mo. App. 2003) (burden on defendant to prove prosecutor received request)
- Webb ex rel. J.C.W. v. Wyciskalla, 275 S.W.3d 249 (Mo. banc 2009) (jurisdictional language reinterpreted; noncompliance reviewed legally, not for jurisdiction)
- Schmidt v. State, 292 S.W.3d 574 (Mo. App. 2009) (plea court had jurisdiction; noncompliance is not jurisdictional error)
- Davis v. State, 320 S.W.3d 237 (Mo. App. 2010) (waiver of UMDDL noncompliance; plea acceptance within jurisdiction)