Johnson v. Cuyler, Civ. A. No. 80-4311.

CourtUnited States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Pennsylvania)
Writing for the CourtFrank Neutze, Camden Asst. County Prosecutor, Camden, N. J., for State of N. J
Citation535 F. Supp. 466
Docket NumberCiv. A. No. 80-4311.
Decision Date01 March 1982
PartiesJames Harold JOHNSON v. Julius T. CUYLER, Supt., John J. Parker, Warden, Camden County Jail, N.J., The Attorney General of the State of Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

535 F. Supp. 466

James Harold JOHNSON
v.
Julius T. CUYLER, Supt., John J. Parker, Warden, Camden County Jail, N.J., The Attorney General of the State of Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

Civ. A. No. 80-4311.

United States District Court, E. D. Pennsylvania.

March 1, 1982.


535 F. Supp. 467

Thomas E. Butler, Jr., Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.

Frank Neutze, Camden Asst. County Prosecutor, Camden, N. J., for State of N. J.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

SHAPIRO, District Judge.

INTRODUCTION

This case is presently before the court on a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by petitioner James H. Johnson. Petitioner challenges the validity of a New Jersey conviction entered against him on December 9, 1980. Petitioner contends that the speedy trial provisions of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers ("Agreement"), 42

535 F. Supp. 468
Pa.C.S.A. § 9101, et seq. and N.J.S.A. 2A:159A-1 et seq., were violated and therefore the New Jersey indictments should have been dismissed. This would be the case only if petitioner had made a valid timely request for transfer under Article III of the Agreement. Evidentiary hearings were held on this issue on July 20, 1981 and November 20, 1981. We deem it appropriate to make factual determinations for the reasons stated herein but deny the petition for failure to exhaust state remedies inasmuch as appellate proceedings are pending in the New Jersey state courts

The following findings of fact are based upon the evidence presented and the stipulations of the parties.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Petitioner was indicted on New Jersey charges in October, 19781 and entered a plea of not guilty on October 26, 1978. The case was continued on November 20, 1978 at the request of the prosecutor. On December 27, 1978 petitioner was arrested in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on charges unrelated to the New Jersey proceedings. At the next listing of the New Jersey case, on January 16, 1979, petitioner was being held in custody in Delaware County, Pennsylvania on a federal detainer for violation of probation (Stip. 1).

2. On January 18, 1979 petitioner was temporarily transferred to Philadelphia custody; on January 25, 1979 Sergeant Banks of the Camden County Fugitive Unit wrote to the Records Keeper of the Philadelphia Detention Center requesting that a detainer based on a New Jersey warrant, issued January 16, 1979, be lodged against petitioner (Stip. 2).

3. Petitioner was arraigned on the New Jersey detainer before The Hon. Abraham J. Gafni, Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, on February 1, 1979. Petitioner then stated in court on the record his desire to be returned to New Jersey for disposition of the New Jersey charges. The matter was continued and bail was set (Dkt.Ent.Muni. Ct.Phila., Ex. 8, p. 2).

4. Petitioner next appeared before Judge Gafni on February 6, 1979. Again he expressed a desire to have the New Jersey charges disposed of but the matter was continued because New Jersey Governor's warrants had not been received (Dkt.Ent. Muni.Ct.Phila., Ex. 8, p. 2).

5. Despite petitioner's statements in court that he wished to be returned to New Jersey for trial, the Philadelphia Police Department by letter dated February 7, 1979 (Exhibit 4), and the District Attorney's office, by letter dated February 26, 1979 (Exhibit 6), advised the Camden County prosecutor that petitioner refused to waive extradition.

6. On February 26, 1979 the Philadelphia District Attorney's office wrote to the Camden authorities that Governor's warrants should be received in Harrisburg by March 7 so that the petitioner might be afforded a hearing by April 7. On February 27, 1979 petitioner was not brought down for his extradition hearing and the matter was continued to February 28, 1979. The defendant was not brought down on February 28 because he was in the Delaware County Prison. On March 2, 1979 the matter was listed for status and continued until March 27, 1979 because no Governor's warrants had yet been received from New Jersey (Stip. 4).

7. According to the letter from the New Jersey Governor's office, the Governor's warrants were sent to the Pennsylvania Governor on March 8, 1979 (Exhibit 7). At the hearing on March 27, 1979, the petitioner was not brought down once again, this time because he was a federal prisoner and the Governor's warrants were lodged in absentia. The fugitive charges against petitioner were dismissed and the matter continued until April 17, 1979 for a hearing on a habeas petition. The hearing of April 17,

535 F. Supp. 469
1979 apparently never took place; there is no indication on the record why it was continued "for status" until May 23, 1979

8. On April 24, 1979 petitioner wrote a letter to Ms. Anne T. Manning, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, Camden, New Jersey, and asked why he was not brought to Camden for trial (Exhibit 45). Ms. Manning responded by letter dated May 2, 1979 and advised petitioner if he wished to come back to New Jersey he could proceed by filing under the Agreement (Exhibit 46).

9. On May 9, 1979, petitioner again requested extradition when he appeared before Judge J. William Ditter, Jr., of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, in violation of probation charges (Cr.No. 76-47, Dkt.No. 22; see Ex. 3).

10. On May 23, 1979 petitioner appeared before Judge Gafni who noted, "Governors Warrants are not contested by Defense. Defense requests immediate extradition. Defendant to be ordered extradited on 6/4/79. (Further investigation by C/W)." (Exhibit 8).

11. On May 23 and May 24, 1979 petitioner was tried in Pennsylvania before The Hon. Charles Durham, Judge of the Court of Common Pleas and convicted.2 At the conclusion of that trial, petitioner was slated for extradition to New Jersey (Exhibit 11).

12. On June 4, 1979 petitioner's extradition to New Jersey was stayed at the request of the Governor of Pennsylvania; the matter was continued to July 13, 1979 (Exhibit 8). On July 7, 1979 petitioner was sentenced by Judge Durham on the Pennsylvania conviction (Exhibit 10). There is no record of disposition of the July 13, 1979 listing in Room 784 before Judge Gafni.

13. On August 3, 1979 petitioner's federal violation of probation detainer was discharged and probation reimposed (Cr.No. 76-47, Dkt.Nos. 23 and 24).

14. On August 8, 1979 petitioner again wrote to Ms. Anne T. Manning, his appointed lawyer for the New Jersey charges, and requested her to advise him of his options (Exhibit 47). She responded on August 15, 1979 and advised petitioner, "if you want to have the matter disposed of, you should request you be returned to New Jersey under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers. Ask the warden for the appropriate forms." (Exhibit 49) (Emphasis supplied).3

535 F. Supp. 470

15. On August 9, 1979 petitioner was transferred to the Pennsylvania State Correctional Institution at Graterford (Hearing Ex. D-3), and advised by prison officials that there was no New Jersey detainer lodged against him.

16. Notwithstanding the erroneous information received from the Graterford officials, petitioner had actual knowledge of the outstanding New Jersey detainer from the prior proceedings. Thus, on August 20, 1979 petitioner wrote a letter addressed to "Prosecutor, Camden County" that he intended to assert his rights under N.J.S. 2A:159-A, Article III and demand a speedy trial. The letter stated where he was incarcerated, his term of sentence and his parole date. He wrote that his attorney, Anne T. Manning, advised him to make this request. However, no copy of this letter was sent to Ms. Manning; there is no evidence that John B. Mariano, the New Jersey prosecutor handling petitioner's case, received this communication.

17. The Philadelphia District Attorney's office sent a letter to Camden officials on September 26, 1979, advised them of petitioner's incarceration at Graterford, recommended they proceed under the agreement to extradite, and stated that the New Jersey Governor's warrants would be withdrawn on October 16, 1979 (Exhibit 12). By a letter dated October 2, 1979 the Camden County prosecutor lodged yet another detainer against petitioner's release (Exhibit 13). Thereafter, on October 10, 1979, Camden prosecutors forwarded Form 5, "Request for Temporary Custody" to Graterford (Exhibits 14 and 15).

18. On October 12, 1979 petitioner wrote to John B. Mariano, Camden prosecutor, stated his receipt of Request for Temporary Custody (Form 5) and reiterated his request for final disposition of the charges in New Jersey under Article III of the Agreement. The letter stated, "I want very much to get this matter over expeditiously." Petitioner said that the bench warrant had been on record since early January 1979 without speedy disposition and advised the prosecutor that "This matter should be over within six months." (Exhibit 37). There is no evidence that Mr. Mariano personally received this communication.

19. Although petitioner contends that he filled out a Form 2 request for disposition and delivered it to the assessment unit at Graterford, no Form 2 request appears in his file and no evidence that such Form was prepared was produced. Petitioner has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that this Form was ever delivered to the appropriate prison officials.

20. On October 23, 1979 Records Officer Kooker, in a letter to the Camden prosecutors, acknowledged receipt of Form 5 and forwarded Form 4 to the Camden authorities with the notation that Form 5 would be forthcoming as soon as court procedures were completed (Exhibits 16 and 17).

21. On November 14, 1979 petitioner sent a letter to The Hon. Charles A. Rizzi, Assistant Judge in Camden County (Exhibit 20). Said letter did not refer to previous letters to the Camden County prosecutor's office nor to any Form 2 submitted by petitioner to appropriate prison authorities. No information was given regarding his term of incarceration, parole eligibility, etc.

22. On...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 practice notes
  • Means v. City of Chicago, No. 81 C 2988.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court (Northern District of Illinois)
    • March 1, 1982
    ...as well as compensatory damages. The defendant City has moved to dismiss the punitive damage claims against it on both the federal 535 F. Supp. 466 and state claims. The Supreme Court has recently held that municipalities are not subject to awards of punitive damages in § 1983 actions. City......
  • State v. Howard, No. 59855
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Ohio)
    • May 1, 1992
    ...of the Act, this latter process is begun by the state's lodging a detainer against the prisoner. See Johnson v. Cuyler (E.D.Pa.1982), 535 F.Supp. 466. The Act contains no definition of a "detainer." It has been otherwise defined as a "notification filed with the institution in which a priso......
  • Burrow v. Hoskin, No. 3:90:0013.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court of Middle District of Tennessee
    • March 12, 1990
    ...remedy. Burkett v. Cunningham, 826 F.2d 1208 (3rd Cir.1987); Smith v. McCotter, 786 F.2d 697 (5th Cir.1986); Johnson v. Cuyler, 535 F.Supp. 466 (E.D.Pa.1982); Thompson v. White, 661 F.2d 103 (8th Cir. 1981); Breazeale v. Bradley, 582 F.2d 5 (5th Cir.1978) (habeas petition dismissed on groun......
  • Com. v. Lloyd
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Pennsylvania
    • January 11, 1988
    ...required by Article III, did not entitle the prisoner to be tried within 180 days of his alleged request). See also Johnson v. Cuyler, 535 F.Supp. 466 (E.D.Pa.1982), aff'd 714 F.2d 123 (3d Cir.1982) (federal court interpretation of Article III requires letter requests for final disposition ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
9 cases
  • Means v. City of Chicago, No. 81 C 2988.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court (Northern District of Illinois)
    • March 1, 1982
    ...as well as compensatory damages. The defendant City has moved to dismiss the punitive damage claims against it on both the federal 535 F. Supp. 466 and state claims. The Supreme Court has recently held that municipalities are not subject to awards of punitive damages in § 1983 actions. City......
  • State v. Howard, No. 59855
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Ohio)
    • May 1, 1992
    ...of the Act, this latter process is begun by the state's lodging a detainer against the prisoner. See Johnson v. Cuyler (E.D.Pa.1982), 535 F.Supp. 466. The Act contains no definition of a "detainer." It has been otherwise defined as a "notification filed with the institution in which a priso......
  • Burrow v. Hoskin, No. 3:90:0013.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court of Middle District of Tennessee
    • March 12, 1990
    ...remedy. Burkett v. Cunningham, 826 F.2d 1208 (3rd Cir.1987); Smith v. McCotter, 786 F.2d 697 (5th Cir.1986); Johnson v. Cuyler, 535 F.Supp. 466 (E.D.Pa.1982); Thompson v. White, 661 F.2d 103 (8th Cir. 1981); Breazeale v. Bradley, 582 F.2d 5 (5th Cir.1978) (habeas petition dismissed on groun......
  • Com. v. Lloyd
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Pennsylvania
    • January 11, 1988
    ...required by Article III, did not entitle the prisoner to be tried within 180 days of his alleged request). See also Johnson v. Cuyler, 535 F.Supp. 466 (E.D.Pa.1982), aff'd 714 F.2d 123 (3d Cir.1982) (federal court interpretation of Article III requires letter requests for final disposition ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT