State v. McKay
411 S.W.3d 295
Mo. Ct. App.2013Background
- Appellant Daniel McKay was arrested after two undercover heroin buys (May 25–26, 2010); a loaded pistol was found in his car and he was charged with two counts of sale of a controlled substance and unlawful possession of a firearm as a felon.
- McKay was already incarcerated on a separate 15-year sentence (probation revoked) and filed a Request for Disposition of Detainer with MDOC on January 20, 2011.
- The MDOC records office failed to forward the request to the Director because the St. Charles warrant was mistakenly labeled a "probation violation," and the court/prosecutor only received the certified request on January 20, 2012.
- McKay was tried March 13–14, 2012; convicted on all counts and sentenced to concurrent terms. He appealed, arguing (1) violation of the UMDDL / speedy-trial rights and prosecutorial misconduct, (2) insufficiency of evidence / suppression/false testimony, and (3) error/ineffective assistance concerning admission of a prior felony plea.
- The appeals court concluded the UMDDL 180-day period was not met due to state-attributable delay and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on the constitutional speedy-trial claim; it rejected McKay’s other claims on the record (insufficiency, Brady, and admission of prior felony).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (McKay) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether dismissal was required under the UMDDL / constitutional speedy-trial right | MDCK: MDOC failed to process his detainer request and prosecutor knew of an invalid warrant; 180-day rule violated and due process breached | State: No prosecutorial misconduct shown; once court/prosecutor received request they tried case within a reasonable time; delay attributable to administrative mistake, not bad faith | Court: Delay from Jan 20, 2011–Jan 20, 2012 was state-attributable and UMDDL 180-day rule was not met; remanded for evidentiary hearing on constitutional speedy-trial prejudice (point partly granted) |
| 2. Whether evidence was insufficient / State suppressed evidence / used false testimony | McKay: State failed to make submissible case; withheld exculpatory evidence and procured false testimony from the detective | State: Presented ample evidence (buys, heroin, lab results, audio, officer testimony); discovery provided and McKay could have obtained witnesses/evidence; no preserved Brady claim | Court: Submissible cases for drug and firearm charges; Brady/false testimony allegations not preserved and no plain-error shown — point denied |
| 3. Whether admission/stipulation to prior felony was error and counsel ineffective | McKay: Jury instruction and stipulation regarding his 2004 guilty plea deprived him of being tried only for charged crimes; counsel ineffective for agreeing to stipulation | State: Prior felony was an element of unlawful possession of a firearm and thus admissible; stipulation proper | Court: Evidence/stipulation admissible because prior felony is element of firearm offense; counsel-ineffective claim not cognizable on direct appeal (must be 29.15) — point denied |
| 4. Prosecutorial misconduct separate from UMDDL argument | McKay: Prosecutor deliberately filed/maintained false probation-violation warrant to defeat detainer request | State: No evidence prosecutor knew of or acted to conceal an error; defense counsel did not press prosecutorial-misconduct claim at trial | Court: No evidence of prosecutor knowledge or deliberate misconduct; claim not proven — point denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Collins v. State, 669 S.W.2d 938 (Mo. banc) (dismissal of indictment reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Walton v. State, 734 S.W.2d 502 (Mo. banc) (burden of compliance with detainer certification is on Director once prisoner delivers request)
- State v. Laramore, 965 S.W.2d 847 (Mo. App. E.D.) (review looks to record to determine invocation of UMDDL)
- State v. Taylor, 298 S.W.3d 482 (Mo. banc) (speedy-trial analysis uses four-factor balancing test)
- State ex rel. McKee v. Riley, 240 S.W.3d 720 (Mo. banc) (speedy-trial protections attach at arrest or formal charging)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S.) (prosecution must disclose evidence favorable to accused)
- Carchman v. Nash, 473 U.S. 716 (U.S.) (detainer/disposition rules do not apply to probation-violation proceedings)