*1
923
dеtention,
should
questioning
suspects in
be noted that an unlawful arrest
and
prosecution
does not vitiate
the entire
initially
the instant case. We
felt that the
the accused. Albrecht v. United
against
proper procedure
petitioners
would be for
States,
1,
250,
273
47
S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 441 There INMAN, Justicе, Special and concur. unlawfully the defendant was arrested and day, arraign released the next after his later, days during Several a lawful
ment. session,
questioning gave the defendant
voluntary confession. The held
“. that the connection between the
arrest
statement had ‘become so
”
dissipate
attenuated as to
the taint.’
419, quoting
at
at
from
U.S.
S.Ct.
NELMS,
Sammy
Petitioner,
Lee
States, supra,
v.
Nardone United
308 U.S.
Wong
Sun
at
illegally obtained confessions. Also in re- Davis
sponse petitioners’ argument, it
925 *2 Reformatory State Men’s for the tem-
porary custody for the purpose trying him on the indictment returned Shelby County. him in 21, 1973, petitioner, pursuant On June *3 111(a) Compact, requested of the of the indictment within disposition (180) eighty days. one hundred This re- Thompson, Shelby Edward G. County, quest acknowledged being was later on Defender, Gwinn, Public Walker Asst. Pub- County file District Shelby in the Attor- Defender, Memphis, lic for petitioner. ney’s Office. Jr., Gen., R. A. Ashley, Atty. Alex B. 22,1973, June the warden of the Iowa On Shiрley, Jr., Gen., Atty. Nashville, Asst. for acknowledged Reformatory Men’s State respondent. Shelby County that he had Sheriff Shelby County’s
received detainer. The prior of two warden also advised detainers OPINION and Illinois. by Mississippi issued FONES, Chief Justice. follow-up peti- no action on Thereafter granted request We tioner’s for final certiorari in this cause to County determine the District Attor- question by Shelby sole taken of whether the 4, 1974, Office, ney’s January State’s failure to and on bring petitioner to trial within one hundred office was notified a different warden of eighty (180) days vio- Reformatory lates the Compact Detainers, Iowa State Men’s on (180) eighty day periоd 40-3901 one had seq., et and voids the County indictment expired Shelby and conviction and the detainer under the terms 111(a) of that was null void under Article statute. The Court of Criminal V(c) Appeals, split decision, Compact. in a of the found that it did disagree not. We and reverse the convic- 8,1974, Attorney the District January On tion petitioner.' request temporary General renewed his for pointing out that a Shelby County custody petitioner, Grand Jury returned an against petitioner indictment form for had on June charge to the Iowa institution on June been mailed robbery by use of a 19, 1973, deadly weapon. and that no offer of release to On that petitionеr date was serving custody had been received from temporary sentence on a prior conviction in the Iowa Iowa authorities. Men’s Reformatory, located in Anamosa, Iowa. 1, 1974, the warden of the February On 15, 1973, Madison,
On June at Fort Penitentiary Iowa letter from the Shel- by County acknowledged custody pеtitioner, Sheriff’s Office Iowa with a certified copy capias Attorney was mailed the District General to the Sheriff and informed Iowa, County, of Scott requesting notify authorities had failed to Iowa of- ficials to detain was available Tennessee Tennessee that authorities. receipt release to June request petition dated 19, 1973, pursuant June
On to Article IV(a) Compact of the Interstate on Detain- later released Petitioner was Iowa and ers, Attorney Shelby County April 12,13,1974, the District General of tried in County made a to the warden of and was convicted of the crime of robbery deadly weapon. Attorney
with a Petitioner was sen- District General to have made a (15) years peniten- tenced to fifteen motion for pursuant a continuance to Arti- tiary consecutively to run with the Iowa 111(a) cle of the Act.
sentence. The record does not reflect whether Mis- trial, petitioner timely
Prior to filed a sissippi or Illinois had made requests for motion to dismiss the indictment because of petitioner, but it comply failure Interstate Com- does reflect that no motion for continuance pact on Detainers. The trial court denied was made the District General. motion, and the Court of af- firmed the denial. We prior hold that detainers lodged against petitioner did justify In its answer to the Petition for Certiora- State’s failure to up petitioner’s follow *4 arguments. ri the State makes two First it request for disposition. argues Shelby County District At- torney justified General was in not follow- Secondly, the State maintains that ing up request temporary custody on his for it should not prеjudiced be because Iowa gave because authorities notice that negligently authorities provide failed to prior two other states had filed detainers. Tennessee authorities with an offer of tem request The views this as a denial of a State porary custody provided by V(a) as Article tempоrary custody for and sufficient to re- Compact. position This necessarily lieve the District General from encompasses the view the burden is on responsibility bringing temporar the defendant to insure that he is (180) to trial within the one eighty ily custody from so that he may released day period. disagree. We stand trial in anothеr state. The statute nothing
It should be noted that there is clearly a place does not such burden on the the record to show that the District Attor- merely requires defendant. It that the de ney knowledge General had of the corre- fendant cause . to be delivered to “ spondence Shelby County between the thе prosecuting officer and the appropriate Office and the Iowa authorities. Sheriff’s court of the prosecuting jurisdic- officer’s reply The Iowa warden’s to the tion written the place notice of of his im- request was a County Sheriff’s detainer prisonment request and his for a final dis- response request tеmporary for cus- position to be made of the indictment tody, contemplated Compact. as 40-3901, 111(a). ...” Article petitioner clearly complied with this assuming But that the District At provision. torney prior General was aware of the de- V(a) where requires the state lodged against petitioner, tainers the defendant is in to make an would not have affected his actions under temporary custody when offer of release to Compact presence as the of a detainer for final prisoner ever a makes a lodged against an individual has no effect him, or when charges ability of that individual to be tem is a for received porarily removed from the state in which he from Iowa authori prosecuting officer. is incarcerated tried another state. provision, comply ties did not with nor presented, A different situation would be however, any did Tennessee authorities make follow Mississippi if both and Illinois had up why an offer of prior requests inquiry made custody was not made. Petitioner should so that could be tried in those charged responsibility in that situa not be procedure states. The correct Shelby County insuring captors complied tion would have been for the that his have
927 opportunities the law when he no institutional has for rehаbilita- By placing over activities. juris- control their tion. In some [citations omitted] insuring on compliance pendency burden of the two dictions the detainer involved, likely precludes the defendant is less the prisoner eligibility states from consideration; contributory “the victim of their parole to become in others it ex- v. People Esposito, placement inaction.” 37 Misc.2d him cludes from work-re- 83, (Queens County programs, known, 201 N.Y.S.2d Ct. lease and it has been 1960). because of the potentiality escape, the prisoner cause to be confined under An examination of the authorities in the security more strict and harsh measures jurisdictions other which have considered might be applicable than otherwise to his analogous presented situations under simi- case, except for the detainer on file.” lar statutes convinces us soundness A.2d at 743. of this decision. legislation The remedial of this re- nature quires that liberally it should be construed Mаryland in favor of those it was intended benefit. Barnes, 273 Md. A.2d 737 Fisher, Commonwealth Pa. reviewed the (Ct.App.1974), purposes of the A.2d 605 Compact Detainers Act: *5 has been long recognized “It that de- adoption the dismissal sanction charges tainers for untried in- —whether V(c) protect was not to the defendant from or intrastate in may terstate re- nature — being prejudiced if his trial were delayed oppressive in ‘undue sult and incarcera- for more than one eighty (180) hundred delay disposition Undue in tion.’ the demand, days regarded but “was as recognized such detainers has been to produce general essential compliance minimizing the a possibility that defend- statutory with the mandate.” State v. might a ant incarcerated receive sentence Lippolis, N.J.Super. 137, 257 A.2d partially at least concurrent with the serving he is term and that under the widely practiced, the procedures duration All delay of trial in excess of one imprisonment may of his be increased eighty (180) not, days does how the and conditions under which his con- ever, mandate dismissal of the indictment. “ greatly finement must be wors- served 111(a) provides of the Act . the pendency ened because of of an addi- good that . . . cause shown the charge against poten- tional him and the jurisdiction may having court of the matter tiality of punishment. additional Simi- grant any necessary or reasonable continu- it larly, recognized long has been that a Here a ance.” there was no motion for delay charge trial the detainer continuance. impair may ability the of the to accused defend himself since a case, he is often in In a closely analogous Common- prison far place Wilson, removed from the where Pa.Super. wealth v. added allegedly place,
the
offense
took
A.2d 792
the
defendant
not
resulting
impairment
ability
an
of his
to
brought
trial because of the inadvertence
keep apprised
of the whеreabouts of
of the trial
even
the
judge,
though
District
witnesses,
and isolates him from
had complied
the
General
availability
ready
of the assistance of
requirements
Pennsyl-
his
of the statute. The
Superior
affirming
counsel.
It has even been stated that the
vania
dismissal
“
indictment,
pendency of such detainer constitutes
fеlt
.
.
is
.
it
impediment
prisoner’s
unimportant
by
abili-
delay
serious
whether
is occasioned
advantage
court;
prosecutor’s
take maximum
ty
by
office or
so
“ .
long
delay
as the
is neither reasonable nor
the appropriate authority in
necessary,
occasioned
the de-
a sending state shall offer tо deliver tem-
fendant,
legislative policy
must be heed-
porary custody of such prisoner to the
ed.”
HARBISON, (dissenting). Justice comply with V, of Article I respectfully dissent from the decision of and later acknowledged this failure. There majority Court, which sets aside was no offer made and voids a conviction of the officials, the Iowa either accompanying the chargеs of armed robbery. The majority request of prisoner, response or in holds that failure of the to bring from the District Attorney Gen- to trial within 180 days after eral County. Not until February receipt of his they 1974 did ever offer custody to the requires dismissal of the pursu- indictment Tennessee officials. ant to Article III of the Interstate Compаct circumstances, Under my opin- these it is Detainers, 40-2901 seq., et re- ion that the Tennessee officials have not *6 gardless of sending whether the state offers provisions violated the of the Interstate custody to the requesting state. Detainers, Compact on and that the offi- judge majority The trial and the responsible cials in Tennessee are not of Appeals Court Criminal reached a con- violation part of the Iowa au- conclusion, trary agree and I with their thorities.
decision.
agree
I
with the conclusion stated in the
majority opinion of the Court of Criminal.
prisoner
Transfer of a
from a state hav-
Appеals
orderly processes
of crimi-
ing
requesting
him in
to a
state
justice
nal
in Tennessee should not be dis-
requires co-operative
part
action
the
rupted by oversight or omission on
part
the
jurisdictions
of the officials of both
in-
sending
of officials of the
state.
present
prisoner,
In the
case the
volved.
provisions
to the
pursuant
Article III of
Maryland
case cited
the majority,
Compact, requested
the
final dis-
Barnes,
273 Md.
cials. The involved taking prison- requesting state in Lippolis, custody.
er into In State
NJ.Super. 257 A.2d officials sending receiving both the states duties, to have been in their
appear derelict sending properly
but state had offered this offer
temporary custody and had been delay
promptly accepted. The occurred consummating
thereafter details of
the transfer. case,
In the Tennessee instant offi- taking custody
cials acted promptly in prisoner, after it offered to them Iowa authorities.
Under the shown in circumstances
case, my opinion judgment Criminal should be af-
firmed. *7 STAMBAUGH, Appellant,
Jim W. al., Appellees.
Lon F. PRICE et
Supreme Court Tennessee.
Jan.