In Re Dacus
2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 2596
| Tex. App. | 2011Background
- IADA is a interstate compact, adopted by Texas as article 51.14, governing detainers and prosecutions across state lines.
- Relator Dacus was indicted in 1983 on theft and capital murder while in federal custody under a detainer.
- The capital murder indictment was dismissed and Dacus was returned to federal custody; the theft plea resulted in a 30-year sentence.
- In 2008 the State reindicted Dacus for murder based on the same transaction that formed the 1983 capital murder charge.
- Respondent denied Relator’s motion to quash the 2008 indictment; Relator sought mandamus and prohibition relief on IADA grounds.
- The court conditionally grants mandamus and prohibition relief to dismiss the 2008 indictment with prejudice if relief is not granted within a reasonable time.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does IADA require dismissal with prejudice when a prisoner is returned before trial? | Dacus argues IADA IV(e) mandates dismissal with prejudice. | State argues IADA IV(e) does not apply since the 1983 indictment was disposed of before detainer, and the 2008 indictment is discretionary. | Yes; IADA requires dismissal with prejudice when returned before trial. |
| Is there a ministerial duty to dismiss the 2008 indictment under IADA given the 1983 dismissal with prejudice? | Relator asserts mandatory duty to dismiss. | State contends no ministerial duty due to discretionary considerations. | There is a ministerial duty to dismiss the 2008 indictment with prejudice. |
| Is mandamus/prohibition available relief to challenge the Respondent's order, given lack of adequate legal remedy? | Relator has no adequate remedy at law. | State suggests direct appeal or other remedies exist. | Mandamus and prohibition are appropriate relief. |
| Does the IADA aim to encourage expeditious disposition of detainers and thus preclude prolonged prosecutions? | Relator relies on IADA's purpose to require timely disposition. | State argues no violation occurred since timing was within limits. | IADA's purpose supports dismissal when required timeframes are not met. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Mauro, 436 U.S. 340 (1978) (detainer remains until underlying charges are finally resolved)
- Alabama v. Bozeman, 533 U.S. 146 (2001) (shall be dismissed with prejudice when returned before trial; absolutes of IADA language)
- Ex parte Torres, 943 S.W.2d 469 (Tex.Crim.App.1997) (final disposition includes dismissal with prejudice; IADA interpretation limits prejudice-free dismissals)
- State v. Williams, 938 S.W.2d 456 (Tex.Crim.App.1997) (IADA duties and time limits; prosecutors must act within 120 days or face constraints)
- Engle v. Coker, 820 S.W.2d 247 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 1991) (IADA timing and effect; new indictments do not reset the clock)
- Ex parte Doster, 303 S.W.3d 720 (Tex.Crim.App.2010) (mandamus may be proper where IADA violation is clear if no adequate remedy at law)