264 P.3d 739
N.M. Ct. App.2011Background
- NM lodged an IAD detainer against Frohnhofer after learning he was incarcerated in Colorado.
- Frohnhofer requested final disposition under Article 3(A) of the IAD on January 6, 2009, triggering a 180-day trial deadline.
- He was transferred to Curry County, NM on March 3, 2009 and placed on Colorado parole on March 16, 2009.
- By July 17, 2009, more than 180 days after the request, Frohnhofer moved to dismiss for violation of the IAD deadline; district court denied.
- A jury convicted Frohnhofer of aggravated battery against a household member and false imprisonment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether IAD Article 3(A) applies after parole. | State contends IAD rights terminate when paroled, so the 180-day clock ceases. | Frohnhofer argues IAD remains applicable whether imprisoned or paroled, preserving the 180-day deadline. | IAD does not apply after parole; the 180-day clock terminates when the prisoner is released. |
| Plain-language interpretation of Article 3(A) of the IAD. | State relies on plain-meaning to assert continuance only during imprisonment. | Frohnhofer argues parole interrupts IAD coverage, consistent with the plain text about the continuance of imprisonment. | Article 3(A) applies only during the continuance of imprisonment; parole ends that period. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Quiroz, 94 N.M. 517, 612 P.2d 1328 (Ct.App. 1980) (completion of a sentence in the sending state terminates IAD rights)
- Snyder v. Sumner, 960 F.2d 1448 (9th Cir. 1992) (parole does not restart IAD clock; early termination arguments rejected)
- Dunaway v. Commonwealth, 60 S.W.3d 563 (Ky. 2001) (parole ends need for IAD protection; parole diminishes detainer interests)