Brown v. Wolff

• Decision Date: 21 April 1983
• Docket Number: No. 80-4447,80-4447
• Citation: 706 F.2d 902
• Parties: Dennis Allen BROWN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Charles L. WOLFF, and Richard H. Bryan, Attorney-General of the State of Nevada, Respondents-Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

Page 902

706 F.2d 902

Dennis Allen BROWN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Charles L. WOLFF, and Richard H. Bryan, Attorney-General of

the State of Nevada, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 80-4447.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Oct. 14, 1982.

Decided April 21, 1983.

Sara B. Brown, Lawrence J. Semenza, Las Vegas, Nev., for petitioner-appellant.

Bruce Laxalt, Reno, Nev., for respondents-appellees.

Appeal from the United States Court for the District of Nevada.

Before SKOPIL and FLETCHER, Circuit Judges, and SCHWARTZ, ^* District Judge.

FLETCHER, Circuit Judge:

Dennis Brown, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals the dismissal of his habeas petition claiming a violation of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD), to which Nevada is a party. Brown contends that he was not tried within 180 days of his request for trial. The State argues that Brown's conviction is valid under the IAD because Brown waived his IAD speedy trial rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2253 (1976) and affirm.

I Facts

On February 25, 1975, while Brown was incarcerated in a Maryland jail on Maryland robbery charges, the State of Nevada filed a criminal complaint charging Brown with robbery in Nevada. Both Maryland and Nevada are parties to the IAD, an interstate compact designed, inter alia, to enable a prisoner in one state to request the speedy disposition of criminal charges pending against him in another jurisdiction. See Md.Ann.Code, Art. 27, Secs. 616B-616J (1965); Nev.Rev.Stat. Sec. 178.620 (1971). Pursuant to the IAD, Nevada officials filed a detainer with the State of Maryland in June 1975. Four months later, Brown pleaded guilty to the Maryland robbery and received a fifteen-year sentence.

Brown was not informed of the Nevada detainer until October 1977. ¹ In January 1978, Brown completed forms requesting a trial on the Nevada charges within 180 days, pursuant to Article III(a) of the IAD. ² On January 13, Brown gave the forms to Maryland prison officials, who mailed them on January 17. Nevada authorities received the forms on January 20, three days after they had been mailed. ³

Under the IAD procedures, Maryland transported Brown to Nevada on April 25, 1978. At Brown's arraignment hearing in Nevada, trial was set for July 24, 1978, a date 192 days after Brown had given the forms to Maryland officials, 188 days after the forms were mailed, and 185 days after the Nevada authorities received the forms. At the arraignment neither Brown nor his counsel objected to the July 24 trial date.

On June 7, 1978, Brown filed a petition for a pre-trial writ of habeas corpus in state court. He stipulated that if his habeas petition were not decided by 15 days before the July 24 trial date, the court could continue the trial. At the hearing on the petition, Brown alleged that the State had violated both his speedy trial right under the IAD by not trying him within 180 days and his constitutional speedy trial right by not trying him within three years. ⁴ The Nevada court denied the writ on August 7, 1978, holding that there were exceptional circumstances that made the 180-day rule inapplicable. On appeal, the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because Brown had never requested trial under Article III, no IAD violation occurred. ⁵ Brown was then tried and sentenced.

Brown next petitioned for habeas relief in federal district court, contending that the indictment should be dismissed because the state did not try him within 180 days and because his constitutional speedy trial right was violated. The State argued that the trial was timely under Article III and that in any event Brown had suffered no prejudice from a "mere technical violation." The district court denied the petition because the IAD violations did not result "in a fundamental defect which inherently results in a complete miscarriage of justice," citing Hitchcock v. United States, 580 F.2d 964, 966 (9th Cir.1978). The district court also found no constitutional speedy trial violation.

II Speedy Trial Under the IAD

A person in state custody may apply in federal court for a writ of habeas corpus "only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the constitution or laws ... of the United States." 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254(a) (1976). The IAD is an interstate compact approved by Congress and is thus a federal law within the meaning of Sec. 2254. Cf. Cuyler v. Adams, 449 U.S. 433, 438, 101 S.Ct. 703, 706, 66 L.Ed.2d 641 (1981) (IAD violation is violation of federal law for purposes of 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983). Accordingly, the district court had jurisdiction to decide whether Brown was being held in violation of the IAD.

Article III of the IAD allows a prisoner to initiate proceedings for transfer to another jurisdiction for trial. The warden must notify the prisoner of all outstanding detainers and inform him of his right to request a final disposition of the underlying charges. If a prisoner demands disposition, he must be transferred and brought to trial within 180 days or the charges will be dismissed with prejudice, unless good cause can be shown. Arts. III(a), V(c); Cuyler, 449 U.S. at 444, 101 S.Ct. at 709 (dictum); cf. United States v. Mauro, 436 U.S. 340, 364-65, 98 S.Ct. 1834, 1849-50, 56 L.Ed.2d 329 (1978) (indictment dismissed because prisoner not tried within applicable time period).

Brown contends that his indictment must be dismissed because he was not tried within 180 days of his request. The State argues that no dismissal is required because: (a) any violation was a mere technicality not justifying dismissal; (b) Brown has shown no prejudice by the delay; (c) the state court extended the period for good cause because the court calendar was too congested to permit a trial within the 180 day period; and (d) Brown waived his right to trial within 180 days. We examine each of these arguments in turn.

A. Technical Error.

The State argues first that we need not determine whether any IAD violation in fact occurred, because any violation was not a "fundamental defect" or an "exceptional circumstance" that justifies habeas corpus relief. See Davis v. United States, 417 U.S. 333, 346, 94 S.Ct. 2298, 2305, 41 L.Ed.2d 109 (1974). Relying on Hitchcock v. United States, 580 F.2d 964, 966 (9th Cir.1978), where we stated that a violation of the anti-shuttling provision ⁶ of the IAD did not give rise to habeas corpus relief, the State argues that violations of the IAD are merely technical errors that do not warrant habeas relief. We disagree.

The primary purpose of the IAD is to "encourage the expeditious and orderly disposition of [outstanding criminal] charges." IAD, Art. I (emphasis added); see United States v. Mauro, 436 U.S. 340, 359-60, 98 S.Ct. 1834, 1846-47, 56 L.Ed.2d 329 (1978). The Agreement requires dismissal of the indictment where trial is not held within the 180-day time period of Article III. IAD, Art. V(c). Accordingly, the Supreme Court has held that dismissal is required where the federal government fails to try a prisoner within the IAD speedy trial limits. Mauro, 436 U.S. at 364-65, 98 S.Ct. at 1849-50; Cuyler, 449 U.S. at 444, 101 S.Ct. at 709 (dictum).

In light of the central policy of the IAD--a speedy resolution of outstanding criminal charges--and the sanction of mandatory dismissal where that policy is thwarted by delay, we have little difficulty concluding that a prisoner who has been tried in violation of the timely trial provisions presents an "exceptional circumstance" that requires section 2254 relief. See Cody v. Morris, 623 F.2d 101, 102-03 (9th Cir.1980) (holding that violation of IAD timely trial provision requires Sec. 2254 relief).

Our opinion in Hitchcock v. United States, 580 F.2d 964 (9th Cir.1978), relied on by the State, does not compel a contrary result. As was explained in Cody, the writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum issued by the receiving state in Hitchcock was not a "detainer" under the IAD. Cody, 623 F.2d at 103 (citing Mauro, 436 U.S. at 361, 98 S.Ct. at 1847). Thus, "the petitioner in that case did not allege any violation of federal law at all." Cody, 623 F.2d at 103. In any event the alleged violation in Hitchcock was quite different, involving the improper return of the prisoner to the sending state before trial in the receiving state. It did not involve the denial of "significant protections relating to such matters as the timing and [defendants'] notice of various proceedings against them," protections which implement the purpose of the IAD. See Hitchcock, 580 F.2d at 966 (emphasis added). The violation in Hitchcock simply failed to "rise to the required level of seriousness" for habeas corpus relief. Id. The Hitchcock court expressly limited its holding to "the facts of this case," id., and nowhere stated, let alone held, that a violation denying "significant protections" would not justify habeas relief.

B. Absence of Prejudice.

The State next contends that even if a violation of the IAD speedy trial provisions requires dismissal of the indictment, we should not grant relief here because the defendant has not demonstrated any prejudice arising from the delay of his trial. We disagree. The Agreement states that a "court ... shall enter an order dismissing the [indictment] with prejudice" for failure to try a prisoner within the specified time. IAD, Art. V(c) (emphasis added). Moreover, the Supreme Court has enforced its literal terms. Mauro, 436 U.S. at 353, 364-65, 98 S.Ct. at 1843, 1849-50; Cuyler, 449 U.S. at 444, 101 S.Ct. at 709. An additional requirement of prejudice is found neither in the agreement nor in its interpretations. See Mauro, 436 U.S. at 364-65, 98 S.Ct. at 1849-50 (dismissal for violation of timely trial provision granted without examining whether defendant was prejudiced by delay); Cody, 623 F.2d at 103 (same).

C. Good Cause.

The State further contends that court congestion constitutes good cause for extending the 180-day period for trial and...