612 So. 2d 1328 | Ala. Crim. App. | 1992
The appellant, Rick Mayes, was convicted of kidnapping in the second degree and of robbery in the third degree, violations of §
The appellant contends that because of an alleged violation of the Uniform Mandatory Disposition of Detainers Act (UMDDA), §§
On June 27, 1991, the appellant moved for a speedy trial. At that time, he was serving a sentence for a conviction of theft of property in Colbert County, Alabama. That same day a "certificate of inmate status" form was filed indicating that no detainers were lodged against him. Ninety days later, the appellant filed for a dismissal of the current charges in Lawrence County.
"Alabama's Uniform Mandatory Disposition of Detainer's Act provides for both the interstate and intrastate dispositionof detainers." Turner v. State,
The appellant claims that his not being tried within 90 days of his motion violated the provisions of §
"Within 90 days after the receipt of the request and certificate by the court and district attorney or within such additional time as the court for good cause shown in open court may grant, the prisoner or his counsel being present, the indictment, information or complaint shall be brought to trial; but the parties may stipulate for a continuance or a continuance may be granted on notice to the attorney of record and opportunity for him to be heard. If, after such a request, the indictment, information or complaint is not brought to trial within that period, no court of this state shall any longer have jurisdiction thereof, nor shall the untried indictment, information or complaint be of any further force or effect, and the court shall dismiss it with prejudice."
If we were to rely on §
*1330"To provide that Alabama enter into the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act, with other member-states, which promotes cooperation between the several states to secure a speedy trial of persons already incarcerated in other jurisdictions by the expeditious and orderly disposition of all detainers based on untried indictments, information or complaints; and to further provide for the uniform mandatory disposition of detainers so as to prescribe the manner and procedures for release of detainers available to incarcerated persons against whom there is pending untried indictments, information or complaints."
1978 Ala. Acts 693, No. 590 (April 27, 1978) (emphasis added).
The reasoning in the UMDDA by its own language applies only to detainers. One state, by judicial fiat, extends the Act in circumstances where there is no detainer. However, the dissent in that case by two judges seems much more reasonable to us.People v. Campbell,
There were no detainers on the appellant's record when he filed his motion for a speedy trial; therefore, the UMDDA is not applicable here. Burke v. State,
AFFIRMED.
All the Judges concur.
BOWEN, J., concur in result only.