State v. DELONG
348 S.W.3d 866
Mo. Ct. App.2011Background
- Delong faced multiple felonies and a misdemeanor in three Lawrence County cases filed in 2009.
- While in Oklahoma, he filed a Request for Disposition of Detainer on April 23, 2010.
- On April 26, 2010, Lawrence County prosecutor requested that a detainer be lodged and IAD paperwork be provided.
- The trial court later dismissed all Lawrence County charges with prejudice for failure to try within 180 days under §217.490.
- The State appealed the dismissal; the Southern District reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with the IAD interpretation addressed in the opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a detainer must be lodged to trigger the IAD 180-day period | State argues detainer needed before trigger | Delong argues substantial compliance suffices | Detainer is a fundamental requirement; no detainer means no trigger; dismissal reversed |
| Whether Delong's early disposition request constitutes substantial compliance | State contends premature request cannot trigger IAD | Saxton-like substantial compliance defense applies | Premature request without a lodged detainer cannot trigger the IAD; not substantial compliance |
Key Cases Cited
- Hicks v. State, 719 S.W.2d 86 (Mo.App.1986) (detainer must be lodged before invoking IAD protections)
- State v. Howell, 818 S.W.2d 681 (Mo.App.1991) (no detainer, no IAD applicability)
- State v. Woods, 259 S.W.3d 552 (Mo.App.2008) (de novo review of IAD application to facts)
- State v. Lybarger, 165 S.W.3d 180 (Mo.App. W.D.2005) (IAD governs disposition of detainers; use in pari materia with UMDDL)
- State v. Smith, 849 S.W.2d 209 (Mo.App.1993) (UMDDL prerequisites; detainer requirement)