45 A.3d 872
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2012Background
- Pitts, incarcerated in Virginia, faced Maryland charges based on a detainer lodged in 2007.
- Pitts invoked IAD rights by requesting final disposition within 180 days on December 7, 2007.
- Virginia removed the detainer on April 3, 2008; charges remained pending.
- Pitts was arrested on the original Maryland warrant on June 30, 2010.
- Pitts moved to dismiss under the IAD in September 2010; later information charged the same offenses in Maryland.
- Circuit Court denied the motion; Pitts was tried January 28, 2011, convicted, and later the convictions were vacated on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did withdrawal of the detainer without dismissal breach the IAD 180-day rule? | Pitts argues withdrawal does not dispose of charges; 180 days run from his request. | State contends withdrawal stops the IAD timeline; no violation. | Yes, withdrawal without dismissal violated the IAD; convictions vacated. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Robertson, 56 P.3d 121 (Colo. Ct. App. 2002) (withdrawal of detainer does not negate lodged detainer and pending charges)
- State v. Tarrant, 772 N.W.2d 750 (Wis. Ct. App. 2009) (withdrawal must be accompanied by dismissal to avoid IAD time limits)
- State v. Pair, 416 Md. 157 (Md. 2010) (IAD must be liberally construed to effectuate its purposes; 180-day clock governs)
- Carchman v. Nash, 473 U.S. 716 (U.S. 1985) (prisoner entitled to either trial or dismissal under IAD)
- Mauro, 436 U.S. 1834 (U.S. 1978) ( Supreme Court discusses cooperative purposes of IAD)