Huddleston v. Jennings, 86-CA-1611-OA
| Citation | 723 S.W.2d 381 |
| Decision Date | 15 August 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 86-CA-1611-OA,86-CA-1611-OA |
| Parties | William R. HUDDLESTON, Petitioner, v. Honorable William JENNINGS, Judge, Clark Circuit Court, Respondent. |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
Allison Connelly, Kenneth R. Taylor, Asst. Public Advocates, Burgin, for petitioner.
David L. Armstrong, Atty. Gen., Frankfort, Thomas Smith, Com. Atty., Richmond, Robert Rose, Co. Atty., Winchester, for respondent.
Before WILHOIT, DYCHE and HOWARD, JJ.
The petitioner, William R. Huddleston, seeks to prohibit the Respondent Judge of the Clark Circuit Court from conducting further proceedings against the petitioner on Indictment Number 85-CR-035 charging him with second-degree possession of a forged instrument, theft by deception and with being a first-degree persistent felony offender. The petitioner contends that the Clark Circuit Court has lost jurisdiction to try him on these offenses because more than 180 days had elapsed from the date he requested a final disposition of the charges against him pursuant to KRS 500.110.
Insofar as the record before us shows, the petitioner was charged in the Clark District Court with second-degree criminal possession of a forged instrument. The complaint is dated April 3, 1985. On September 6, 1985, he filed a pro se motion in that court requesting a speedy trial. On October 29, 1985, the petitioner, this time represented by counsel, filed a request with the district court "pursuant to KRS 500.110" seeking "a final disposition of all indictments or complaints now pending against him in Clark County." A copy of this request was served upon the Clark County attorney. On November 21, 1985, the Clark County Grand Jury returned the indictment which is the subject of this proceeding. Thereafter, on May 30, 1986, the petitioner moved the circuit court to dismiss the indictment because of the prosecution's failure to try him within 180 days of his request for a final disposition. The motion was denied on June 20, 1986, and this proceeding followed.
The Commonwealth argues that the request for a disposition of charges was made to the wrong court and to the wrong prosecutor, because the district court lost jurisdiction to dispose of the charge once the petitioner had been indicted, and therefore the request did "not carry over to circuit court." KRS 500.110 provides:
500.110. Trial of prisoner on untried indictment within 180 days after prisoners' request for final disposition.--Whenever a person has entered upon a term of imprisonment in a penal or correctional institution of this state, and whenever during the continuance of the term of imprisonment there is pending in any jurisdiction of this state any untried indictment, information or complaint on the basis of which a detainer has been lodged against the prisoner, he shall be brought to trial within one hundred and eighty (180) days after he shall have caused to be delivered to the prosecuting officer and the appropriate court of the prosecuting officer's jurisdiction written notice of the place of his imprisonment and his request for a final disposition to be made of the indictment, information or complaint; provided that for good cause shown in open court, the prisoner or his counsel being present, the court having jurisdiction of the matter may grant any necessary or reasonable continuance. (Enact.Acts 1978, ch. 78 Sec. 7, effective June 17, 1978).
We interpret "the prosecuting officer and the appropriate court of the prosecutor's jurisdiction" to mean the prosecutorial office which has lodged the detainer and ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Goben v. Commonwealth
...the speedy resolution of the underlying charges. Rosen v. Watson , 103 S.W.3d 25, 29 (Ky. 2003) (citing and approving Huddleston v. Jennings, 723 S.W.2d 381 (Ky. App. 1986) ).Once Goben had been convicted and sentenced in the December 2009 case, it appears he began his term of imprisonment ......
-
Gabow v. Commonwealth
...for one offense and a detainer has been lodged against him to answer for another offense. Cf. Huddleston v. Jennings, Ky. App., 723 S.W.2d 381, 383 (1986). It does not apply where, as here, a defendant is seeking a speedy trial of an offense for which he is being held in pre-trial incarcera......
-
Gavow v. Com., 1998-SC-0377-MR.
...is incarcerated for one offense and a detainer has been lodged against him to answer for another offense. Cf. Huddleston Jennings, Ky.App., 723 S.W.2d 381, 383 (1986). It does not apply where, as here, a defendant is seeking a speedy trial of an offense for which he is being held in pre-tri......
-
State ex rel. Clark v. Long
...other jurisdictions also involved application of the equivalent of our Interstate Agreement with one exception. Huddleston v. Jennings, 723 S.W.2d 381, 383 (Ky.App.1986), involved Kentucky's version of the UMDDL but, as noted above, that statute included a specific requirement that a detain......