Bursque v. Moore
| Decision Date | 10 May 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 110132,110132 |
| Citation | 227 A.2d 255,26 Conn.Supp. 469 |
| Court | Connecticut Superior Court |
| Parties | Elbert T. BURSQUE v. Francis J. MOORE, Jail Custodian et al. |
Robert Kapusta, Ansonia, for plaintiff.
George R. Tiernan, State's Atty., and David B. Salzman, Asst. State's Atty., for named defendant.
In February, 1965, the plaintiff, who was then lodged in the state jail in New Haven awaiting disposition of criminal charges pending against him in Connecticut, became aware of a warrant lodged against him by the state of New Hampshire charging him with the offense of obtaining money by false pretenses, allegedly committed by him in Hillsborough County, New Hampshire. During his confinement and prior to April 23, 1965, the plaintiff made at least thirty-five unsuccessful written requests of the New Haven jailer for a 'speedy trial form' for the purpose of obtaining a speedy trial disposition of the New Hampshire charges. On April 23, 1965, the plaintiff was sentenced in the Superior Court at New Haven to one year in jail on the Connecticut charges. On April 24, 1965, he again requested a speedy trial form. This request was not honored. From April 24 to June 5, 1965, he made an average of three written requests per week for a speedy trial form with the same negative response.
On August 25, 1965, a request of the plaintiff for final disposition of the New Hampshire charge pursuant to article III of § 54-186 of the General Statutes was received by the prosecuting attorney and by the Superior Court of New Hampshire. This request, which was sent by the plaintiff's attorney, was not accompanied by an offer by the jailer to deliver temporary custody of the plaintiff as specified in article V of § 54-186. On August 30, 1965, and again on January 26, 1966, the prosecuting attorney of the Superior Court of New Hampshire wrote to the jailer at New Haven advising that no such offer was ever received. A copy of the January, but not the August, letter was sent to the plaintiff's attorney. At no time did the Connecticut authorities send to the New Hampshire authorities an offer to deliver temporary custody of the plaintiff.
The plaintiff, with time off for good behavior, was entitled to be released from the Connecticut charge on February 20, 1966. The 180-day period during which he was required under article III to be brought to trial in New Hampshire expired on February 20, 1966. He was not released but instead was held first on a fugitive warrant and subsequently on a governor's warrant, issued April 4, 1966, after the institution of extradition proceedings. Thereafter the plaintiff instituted the present writ of habeas corpus. At no time did he file a writ of mandamus to compel the defendants to comply with the requirements of article V respecting making an offer to deliver temporary custody. Both Connecticut (General Statutes § 54-186) and New Hampshire (N.H.Rev.Stat.Ann., c. 606-A) are parties to the interstate agreement on detainers.
The plaintiff has been held at the state jail first under a detention warrant or detainer issued by appropriate authorities of the state of New Hampshire, second under a fugitive warrant issued pursuant to § 54-169 of the General Statutes, and finally under a governor's warrant issued pursuant to § 54-163. The question presented by this proceeding is whether the plaintiff is now being held illegally. The determination of this question turns on the legal effect of the interstate agreement on detainers as embodied in § 54-186 of the General Statutes.
A detainer or hold order is an informal demand by one exercising public authority for the possession of a person already in the lawful custody. Black, Law Dictionary (4th Ed. 1951). In the field of interstate relations, a detainer puts the prison authorities in the custodial state on notice that the prisoner is charged with crime in another state and is a fugitive from justice. The nature of a detainer is such that even were it only a fugitive alert its very existence tends to create serious problems in the correctional field. These are spelled out in article I of the statutory agreement as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sweat v. Darr
...a warden could repeatedly refuse to forward a prisoner's request for a speedy trial of the outstanding charges. See Bursque v. Moore, 26 Conn.Supp. 469, 227 A.2d 255 (1966). (During six-week period while serving term of imprisonment, prisoner made some 18 written requests to his jailer for ......
-
Glavin v. Warden, State Prison
...220 N.E.2d 165, 167; Lott v. Heyd, 315 F.2d 350 (5th Cir.); State ex rel. Brown v. Hedman, 280 Minn. 69, 157 N.W.2d 756; Bursque v. Moore, 26 Conn.Sup. 469, 227 A.2d 255. There is no In this opinion the other judges concurred. 1 In Bloom v. Lundburg, 149 Conn. 67, 70, 175 A.2d 568, 569, cer......
-
Shields v. State
...warrant. (See also Lott v. Heyd, (5th Cir.) 315 F.2d 350.) We agree * * *.' Id. at 282, 220 N.E.2d at 167. See also Bursque v. Moore, 26 Conn.Sup. 469, 227 A.2d 255 (1966). There being no error, the order must be Order affirmed, with costs. ...
-
Petition of Gay
...decided by lower State courts in Connecticut. See Thomlinson v. Liburdi, 34 Conn.Supp. 128, 380 A.2d 105 (1977); Bursque v. Moore, 26 Conn.Supp. 469, 227 A.2d 255 (1966). The continuing validity of these holdings is in serious doubt following the Connecticut Supreme Court's contrary ruling ......