*1 above, respectful- I stated For reasons
ly dissent. GALLIMORE, Petitioner, Jr., D.
Robert Oklahoma,
The STATE al., Respondent.
et
No. O-97-079. Appeals Oklahoma. Criminal
Aug. *2 13, was April 1994, arrested on Commerce, Oklahoma,
in by officers from Oklahoma arrest, and During Missouri. Petitioner was injured. shot and He was initially hospital taken to Miami, a in Okla- homa, and from there was air-lifted ORDER GRANTING WRIT OF MANDA- hospital in Joplin, Missouri. Petitioner was AND MUS DIRECTING DISMISSAL OF not returned to Oklahoma after his release WITH CHARGES PREJUDICE hospital, from the but instead was and tried 27, 1997, Petitioner, January On through felony convicted of several in offenses Mis- counsel, “Petition Extraordinary filed a souri for currently which he is serving time. Writ of ofWrit Prohi- Mandamus/Alternative The State of requested Oklahoma first Pe- bition” requesting this Court order Dis- titioner be returned January to Oklahoma on County, trict Court of Ottawa the Honorable 2, 1996. That by filing was initiated Fullerton, dismiss, Sam Judge, District appropriate detainer documents with the prejudice, charges with pending against Department Corrections, Missouri pursu- him in Case Nos. CRF-94-129 and CRF-94- IADA, 1347, ant to the asking O.S.1991 that Petitioner be returned to Oklahoma to 27, 1997, February On this Court entered stand trial in Case Nos. CFR-94-1291 an directing order either the District Attor- CRF-94-1332 in the District Court of Otta- ney County Attorney Ottawa or the Gen- County. wa That request, for various rea- eral of respond of Oklahoma sons, delayed, was and Petitioner application. Petitioner’s responding returned to 25, until Oklahoma June party specifically requested to address IV(c), Pursuant to the Article a following question: being defendant returned to the non-eustodi-
Why does the trial, dock- al state for et justifying constitute “trial shall be commenced within one hun- extension of time to a defendant to twenty days dred of the arrival period speci- prisoner state, in receiving but Agreement fied the Interstate on De- open court, pris- shown tainers Act? being oner present, or his counsel having jurisdiction may of the matter 1997, 24, On response March was filed grant any necessary or reasonable continu- Attorney General of the Okla- added) ance.” homa. request. We now address Petitioner’s ease, In Petitioner’s trial was to commence procedural A history review of the of this 22,1996. on or before October necessary put case is in perspective the matter By design, which we consider alleges ready here. proceed it the Interstate on Detainers Act with the of Petitioner’s case (IADA) expedite meant the trial of as well his return to the it should have charges outstanding charged based on informations been. The crimes were committed pending April indictments 1994 and the State had had two Delay in a prosecuting years prepare. sister state. even Peti- after against whom has been tioner was returned to Oklahoma on June lodged very preliminary defeats the of the stat- set for case was not ute. hearing September until Petitioner, Petitioner, 1. Case No. CFR-94-129 2. Case No. CRF-94-133 Information, Information, way way of a Third with Traf- of a Third Amended Amended with Un- (Count I); ficking Amphetamine (Counts II); Possession lawfully Running Road Block I and (Count Methylphenidate Intent to Distribute Discharging a With Firearm Intent to Kill II); with Intent to Distribute Mor- Possession (Counts IV); Discharging III and a Firearm (Count III); phine with Intent to and Possession (Count V). From a Vehicle IV). (Count Oxycodone Distribute delay. Ottawa On that no reason for record reflects filed its Second until November of 1996. The State September September acknowledged at this knew Information. On Amended motions, year several includ- dockets Petitioner filed there were Dismiss ing Quash, County, Motion to that the next dock- a Motion Ottawa *3 Suppress, Moreover, Prejudice, with Motion to until et would November. Fullerton, Request by Judge for a Trial. hearing at the as noted first ended in the latter initially hearing con- preliminary was The May, Petitioner was returned of well before September until and continued tinued can to the for trial. We conclude State again September until to allow the State fully that if Peti- that the State was aware prepare argue to additional time which to tioner was returned to Oklahoma after the Quash to Dismiss. Petitioner’s Motions concluded, May jüry docket there would be time, record, by It at that on was noted until November of docket available counsel, that continuation Petitioner’s year. The granted that same District Court 25 September September from was request, finding the State’s the lack of a objection. over Petitioner’s allowed docket constituted cause. Sep- for trial on was bound over Petitioner ap- his intention to Petitioner announced arraignment his set for tember ruling, but peal the District Court’s counsel 3,1996. record of hear- The earliest October representa- subsequently withdrew his matter, to this ings in made available this ap- of new tion Petitioner and counsel review, September for is the On pointed some time later.3 December hearing. hearing It was at this and chal- Petitioner’s motion dismiss began requesting an extension jurisdiction, lenges well as limit, the State’s recognizing day LADA 120 time, again request for an of were extension time for absent an extension of time, By by the District this run. heard Court. their IADA statute of limitations would new appointed Petitioner had been counsel. hearing It was at this same ruling was the same. set for District Court’s the next docket was indicated 4,1996. court, and the Petitioner’s motions were denied The trial Hon- November request an extension of time due Thompson, Special Judge, State’s for orable Martha Sue unavailability docket was to the request, finding the mo- the State’s refused ruling It that Petition- granted.4 is from this premature had no tion and that she grant er now seeks relief. jurisdiction such an extension. From the time he returned to Oklahoma alleges propositions of Petitioner two preliminary
until the time Petitioner’s support of his claim that error days elapsed. of 92 hearing, total him against should be dismissed. We 17,1996, hearing proposition on merit Petitioner’s second
On October was held day he claims that the State lost request to extend the error wherein jurisdiction for the offenses request for time limit. As limit, charged in CF- argued Nos. CF-94-129 and the State Case to extend the ability to consid- tainer Petitioner’s counsel did not extend the restricts 3. The withdrawal of withdrawal, pris- At the time of time limit. ered for reclassification Missouri days already expired had ability appear Petitioner’s system; in front his on it limits granted had for District Court and treatment Board of Missouri's classification (which an extension of time. responsible hap- what pens inside the institution Petitioner the limit- 4. Petitioner testified at treatment, etc.); custody, Peti- limits terms of indicating prejudice he had ed appearances front of the classification tioner’s and the suffered State's attributable (he appear in front of Board will not able placed on him. He indicated that dur- 1997 because until November Board awaiting ing he was trial several of the time Oklahoma); lodged by the State of of the detainer disappeared key un- had and he was witnesses opportunities for insti- and the detainer limits his for the able to locate them. He also delineated rehabilitation, education, training, etc. tutional simply suffered District Court having lodged de- a detainer him. The prop- 94-133 and therefore address that previously This Court has determined of error. that failure appellant osition to trial pursuant days within There is much about Petitioner’s claim custody requires arrival into the State’s dis undisputed. Both Petitioner and missal of the him/her Petitioner was returned prejudice. Wilkett to Oklahoma to the IADA and Bell, (Okl.Cr.1988); 714 P.2d at on should have been tried before October issue here is whether a situation outside of 22,1996. Petitioner was tried within the the control of either the or the the basis for the docket) (availability of a consti granted extension of time the district tutes cause” sufficient to toll the stat court was the docket. *4 ute. We find that does not. repeatedly objec- Petitioner has renewed his In addressing unique the present- situation tion to the time and extension has never case, ed in Petitioner’s we have found no consented, right, or his waived to be tried dealing cases particular question, with this 120-day time limit. jurisdictions. either our or own agree Both Petitioner and the State that the However, we have found that a number of provisions prevent of the Act meant are jurisdictions construed have the time limit government gaining the from advantages provisions of IADA require the com- strict by lodging over a detainer pliance on the of the State. assuming without the re- him/her provides only The IADA 2 exceptions to sponsibilities accompany such an action. requirement the with- Lastly, it disputed is not that at the time of 111(a) IV(c) provisions. in its Article request the for an extension the State was subject the is ready proceed to trial. any necessary or reasonable continuance purpose The is quite of the IADA set forth based good cause which is shown plainly: open prisoner the counsel VI(a) present. is peri- Article tolls the time Accordingly, policy party it is the of the od prisoner when the is unable to stand purpose agreement the of this states and We are exception concerned with the encourage expeditious orderly the IV(e), provided undisputed in Article as it is disposition of such and determina- that Petitioner was available for trial the proper any tion of the status and all question. time in indictments, untried detainers based ’ complaints. informations or Continuances under the IADA are unique. statute, of the stated at O.S.1991, 1347, § 22 I. article I, encourage Article expeditious is to the Lane, orderly In Bell v. State 714 disposition ex rel P.2d 205 and determina (Okl.Cr.1986) this Court addressed a claim tion of proper the status of all indictments, under the IADA the wherein Petitioner al- detainers based on untried in- leged granted O.S.1991, extensions of complaints. the State formations 22 O.S.1991, 1347, 1347, § § were 22 provides only unreasonable. art. art. I. statute itself complaint, IX. examining specific one exception specified Bell’s this Court determined that the time limits IADA limit the and that the unavailability of the mandatory. were brief, The Court did state the defendant. As the State noted its time limits proper prevent could be extended govern- is meant to tolling of at 206. gaining advantages statute. Id. We fur- ment from against a de- purposes ther determined lodging that the the Act fendant detainer clearly are responsibilities set forth and the courts assuming arising are ex- without pected purposes. Mauro, to fulfill those Article IX from that action. United States v. provides 340, 1834, of the IADA 436 U.S. S.Ct. 56 329 98 L.Ed.2d (1978). liberally nature, and, to be so construed as to effectuate The Act is remedial O.S.1991, purpose. 1347, such, its 22 liberally art. IX. should be construed fa- length delay particularly rel relevant as State ex Hammett vor of the defendant. McKenzie, (Mo.App. 596 S.W.2d the time limits v. Fisher,
1980); 451 Pa. strictly particular In this case Commonwealth construed. (1973); West, State v. 301 A.2d no waiver (1963). 379, 191 N.J.Super. 760 n. 1 A.2d provision, inquiry relevant delay. here is the cause Act, respect With advantages in terms of all of the State has that since there is hard provisions. The deciding when to invoke its and fast rule for what consti and when to file determines whether detainer; tutes whether and cause” the State decides judicial request question interpretation transfer of the defendant to one of when to jurisdiction; and the State determines the under the facts and circumstances of each prosecution, by virtue of its timetable case. See also Pickle v.
ability time the for transfer (Okl.Cr.1966); Fike v. jurisdiction. Fur- from another utilizing guide Even thermore, nothing we in the IADA which Act, lines set forth Trial dismissing prevent would meet the still find lack fails to if, as in filing it at a later date exception. pre This has *5 case, impossible to the State found it this jury viously that lack of a docket determined within the time limits a defendant “good failing does not constitute cause” for to by the statute. provide speedy a trial. a defendant -with See (Okl.Cr.1966). 69, 75 Pickle v. 418 P.2d position jury
In
of
that lack of a
support
its
“good
urges
constitutes
cause” the State
this
sought
In
a writ of
Pickle the defendant
Speedy Trial Act for
Court to look to the
directing
to
mandamus
the district court
dis-
cause”,
determining “good
guidance
alleging
miss
he
murder
(citing
other states have done
to United
a
right
speedy
had
denied his
to
trial
been
(2nd
Cephas,
v.
937 F.2d
States
the Unit-
pursuant to the 6th Amendment of
Cir.1991)). Moreover,
argues that
Constitution, Art.2, § 6 of the
ed States
must
of each individual case
facts.
OMahoma Constitution and
OM.St.Ann.
deciding
“good
whether
examined
§
that
support
In
of its contention
812.
actually
delay hearing
a
exists
“good cause” the
case
continued for
the IADA. The
cites to numerous cases
State
(1)
attorney
alleged
avail-
State
provision
speedy
trial
where the
charge
prosecute the
in Cherokee
able to
variety
tolled for
cause” due
of
disqualified
each was
because
indictments,
reasons, including
in-
defective
(2)
reason;
good
that from the time the
delay by
delays, delays
design, and
terim
a
trial
declared mistrial
second
agreement.
was neither
date
the instant
there
guidelines
while the
utilized
docket;
jury
criminal
there
a civil nor
speedy
in a
good
of defendants
were an insufficient number
that a
helpful,
we do
find
situation
time,
a
to stand trial at
available
foreign
pur
summoned
a
State
justify the set-
the number of which did not
claiming delay has
suant to
ting
jury docket.5
claiming delay
as a
same burden
granting
In
the writ of mandamus
nothing
Trial Act.
under the
We
Pickle,
found
dismissing
charges in
require a defen
in the IADA which would
given
reasons
constituted
that none
is enti
before
dant
show
he/she
previ-
its
good
This Court reiterated
speedy
cause.
tled
strict construction
on the de-
holding
the burden was
ous
unique to the IADA. Nor
provision
added.)
jury
was not
jury
The fact that the
provides
sessions
O.S.1991
prevent
did
November
may
scheduled until
be held at
the district court
requesting
set
hear
presiding judge
judge
chief
or of the
order of a
district,
(emphasis
case.
judicial
administrative
trial,
fendant to show laches6 on the
right
accused to
the constitutional
(other
officers,
through
prosecuting
away indefinitely.
could befrittered
presumption
delay
is that
wise the
was Pickle,
added.)
when a set intervening prop weeks or months could seeking A defendant dismissal calculating erly time limits be considered try based the State’s failure to resolve issue.7 statutorily mandated sympathize prose with the While period specified in the IADA show need dilemma, ignore we cannot the man cution’s timely that he was not tried and that in the specified limits IADA. To dated time delay not his fault. The burden then rights be to do would why explain to the State to shifts enough to who is unfortunate should not be dis for trial in a small returned limit why missed county sporadic jury dockets. This we Hammett, properly See State ex rel. tolled. Likewise, unpersuasive we find cannot do. at 59. S.W.2d delays argument that because the provided transferring to this from We find that the time limitations construed, control, liberally it is ab should be Missouri were act, timely responsibility Petition as is the rest of favor solved of of, of, Surely suggesting defendant. Lack er. the time docket within frame be attributed to Petitioner to *7 for trial of defendant work to his detriment. While the transfer fault, good cause an exten- delay may not been it does not constitute have 120-day statutorily sion mandated problem. has Unfortu become nately, duty time frame within which a defendant neglect of official —whether upon the timely to con tried. It is incumbent failure to transfer or failure verify it is invoking the able docket —can not be used to ex vene timely the defendant whom time limitations set forth tend the lodged. being To find otherwise IADA. will this Court allow of detainer Nor limita- duty by party to would be to render useless official a third work defendant, specifically depriving tions within the Act detriment problem delay. designed to avoid the timely trial. The State invoked McKenzie, they crowding continued if are ex cases should be In State rel. Hammett (Mo.App.1980), Missouri court has must entertain a criminal case S.W.2d 53 a docket which legislative gone far as state an overcrowded is clear. under the Act. The mandate not, se, good per promptly dispose extend the de- docket is Failure to of out-of-state period. The stated: precedence IADA time Missouri court over other must take tainers congestion delay result First, County causes.... If the crowded docket in Franklin staffing funding, inadequate the inevit- court sufficient cause.... If cannot considered be, delays fall results of those must take cases able need the circuit court must remedy power people, by taking who have such actions as off the trial docket congestion. granting continuances in criminal cases Hammett, being 58-59 add- prosecuted 596 S.W.2d at under the Interstate ed.) Similarly, Detainers Act. civil on results, Therefore, LUMPKIN, J., appli- we GRANT Petitioner’s concurs cation for writ mandamus and direct that LANE, J., participating. him in Case Nos. CRF- CRF-94-133, 94-129 and District LUMPKIN, Judge, concurring in results: dismissed, Court of Ottawa prejudice. I concur in the result reached the Court
IT IS ORDERED. SO based on the facts of this case. I cannot with the dicta contained in Chapel Charles S. /s/ Court’s order. CHAPEL, CHARLES S.
/s/ Presiding Judge /s/ Reta M. Strubhar
/s/ STRUBHAR, RETA M.
/s/ Presiding Judge Vise
/s/ A. Johnson
/s/Charles JOHNSON, CHARLES A.
/s/ Judge
/s/