State v. Earl Scott Chesnut
2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 1511
| Tex. App. | 2014Background
- Earl Scott Chesnut, incarcerated in Oregon, filed an IADA request for final disposition and waived extradition after a Hopkins County, Texas, indictment for theft of a firearm.
- Chesnut delivered the standardized IADA form to the Oregon warden, who was required to forward it to the Hopkins County prosecutor and the trial court.
- The warden mailed the packet to Hopkins County; the district attorney received it, but the copy meant for the trial court was misaddressed and never received by the trial court.
- The Hopkins County prosecutor did not request a continuance or otherwise try Chesnut within 180 days after receiving the packet; the 180-day period elapsed without trial.
- Chesnut was later transferred to Texas; he moved to dismiss the indictment under the IADA; the trial court granted dismissal. The State appealed, arguing the court never actually received the prisoner’s request.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Chesnut) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prisoner satisfied IADA delivery requirements by giving request to warden for forwarding | Chesnut’s delivery to the warden is insufficient if the court never actually received the notice | Chesnut complied by delivering the request to the warden as required; custodial officials’ failure to forward is not his fault | Chesnut satisfied Article III by delivering the request to the warden for forwarding |
| When the 180‑day IADA clock begins when court and prosecutor receive notice on different days | The clock should not start until the court actually receives the request | The prosecutor’s actual receipt should start the 180‑day period; prosecutor is responsible to bring defendant to trial | The 180‑day period commenced on the date the prosecuting office actually received the compliant request; State failed to try Chesnut within 180 days, so dismissal was proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Alabama v. Bozeman, 533 U.S. 146 (discussion that IADA is a congressionally sanctioned compact)
- Fex v. Michigan, 507 U.S. 43 (holding that the receiving State’s receipt of the request starts the IADA clock)
- Walker v. State, 201 S.W.3d 841 (Tex. App.—Waco 2006) (prisoner may satisfy Article III by delivering request to warden for forwarding)
- In re Dacus, 337 S.W.3d 501 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2011) (discussion of IADA adoption and procedures)
- State v. Votta, 299 S.W.3d 130 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (overview of IADA cooperative procedure)
- Casper v. Ryan, 822 F.2d 1283 (3d Cir. 1987) (persuasive reasoning that custodial state's default shouldn't penalize prisoner)