Laster v. State

• Decision Date: 01 September 1987
• Docket Number: No. 72,72
• Citation: 546 A.2d 472,313 Md. 548
• Parties: Michael Edward LASTER v. STATE of Maryland. ,
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

Page 548

313 Md. 548

546 A.2d 472

Michael Edward LASTER v. STATE of Maryland.

No. 72, Sept. Term, 1987.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

Sept. 9, 1988.

[546 A.2d 473] Arthur A. DeLano, Jr., Asst. Public Defender (Alan H. Murrell, Public Defender, on the brief), Baltimore, for appellant.

Ann E. Singleton, Asst. Atty. Gen. (J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Atty. Gen., on the brief), Baltimore, for appellee.

Argued before MURPHY, C.J., and ELDRIDGE, COLE, RODOWSKY, McAULIFFE, ADKINS and BLACKWELL, JJ.

BLACKWELL, Judge.

The Interstate Agreement on Detainers ("IAD") provides two different time periods within which the receiving state must bring the prisoner to trial. If a prisoner initiates the proceedings under Article III, then the trial must commence within 180 days after the "prosecuting officer" and the "appropriate court" receive the prisoner's request. If a member state initiates the proceedings under Article IV, then the trial must commence within 120 days of the prisoner's arrival in the receiving state. The sanction for failure to comply with the prescribed time periods is a dismissal of the charge or charges with prejudice. This case concerns the application of these time periods when there are multiple jurisdictions in the receiving state who have lodged detainers against the prisoner as well as the application of these time periods when both the prisoner and the member state initiate proceedings under the IAD.

I

We begin with a brief history of the case. Since July of 1985, Petitioner Michael Edward Laster ("Laster") has been serving a term of life imprisonment for first degree rape in North Carolina. In November of 1985, Laster was transported to Maryland pursuant to the IAD and subsequently prosecuted in Anne Arundel County and in Howard County. In March of 1986, in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County (Thieme, J.), Laster was tried and convicted in two sexual offense cases. On April 30, 1986, Laster appeared in the Circuit Court for Howard County (Nissel, J.), and subsequently was convicted of first degree sexual offense, third degree sexual offense, armed robbery, wearing and carrying a handgun, and three counts of use of a handgun in the commission of a felony.

Laster appealed the judgment of the Circuit Court for Howard County to the Court of Special Appeals and, among other allegations of error, claimed that Howard County had failed to comply with the 120 day time period prescribed in Article IV of the IAD. In an unreported opinion, the Court of Special Appeals concluded that there was "no provision within Article IV making the 120-day period applicable to all prosecuting authorities within a single state" and, finding no other error, affirmed the convictions. We granted certiorari at 310 Md. 144, 527 A.2d 331 (1987).

II

The Interstate Agreement on Detainers, to which Maryland became a signatory in 1965, consists of nine articles and a number of supplemental provisions. Maryland Code (1957, 1987 Repl.Vol.), Article 27, §§ 616A-616R. ¹ In addition, there are eight optional implemental forms, set forth in full in an appendix to this opinion, which apparently have been adopted for use in this state by the Office of the Attorney General and which were used in this case. ²

The purpose of the IAD is found in Article I:

"The party states find that charges outstanding against a prisoner, detainers based on untried indictments, informations or complaints, and difficulties in securing speedy trial of persons already incarcerated in other jurisdictions, produce uncertainties which obstruct programs of prisoner treatment and rehabilitation. Accordingly, it is the policy of the party states and the purpose of this agreement to encourage the expeditious and orderly disposition of such charges and determination of the proper status of any and all detainers based on untried indictments, informations, or complaints. The party states also find that proceedings with reference to such charges and detainers, when emanating from another jurisdiction, cannot properly be had in the absence of cooperative procedures. It is the further The central provisions of the IAD are Articles III and IV. Article III permits a prisoner incarcerated in a member state to demand disposition of any "untried indictment, information or complaint [pending in another member state] on the basis of which a detainer has been lodged against the prisoner." Article III(a) provides, in part:

purpose of this agreement to provide such cooperative procedures."

"Whenever a person has entered upon a term of imprisonment in a penal or correctional institution of a party state, and whenever during the continuance of the term of imprisonment there is pending in any other party 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 eighty 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 over the matter may grant any necessary or reasonable continuance."

The prisoner's demand:

"operate[s] as a request for final disposition of all untried indictments, informations or complaints on the basis of which detainers have been lodged against the prisoner from the state to whose prosecuting official the request for final disposition is specifically directed.

* * *

* * *

If trial is not had on any indictment, information or complaint contemplated hereby prior to the return of the prisoner to the original place of imprisonment, such indictment, information or complaint shall not be of any further force or effect, and the court shall enter an order dismissing the same with prejudice."

Article III(d).

Article IV permits the "appropriate officer" of a member state, who has previously filed a detainer against the prisoner, to obtain temporary custody of a prisoner incarcerated in another member state against whom any "untried indictment, information or complaint is pending." Article IV(a) provides:

"The appropriate officer of the jurisdiction in which an untried indictment, information or complaint is pending shall be entitled to have a prisoner against whom he has lodged a detainer and who is serving a term of imprisonment in any party state made available [for temporary custody] upon presentation of a written request for temporary custody or availability to the appropriate authorities of the state in which the prisoner is incarcerated: provided that the court having jurisdiction of such indictment, information or complaint shall have duly approved, recorded and transmitted the request: and provided further that there shall be a period of thirty days ... within which the governor of the sending state may disapprove the request for temporary custody...."

Article IV(c) continues:

"In respect of any proceeding made possible by this Article, trial shall be commenced within one hundred twenty days of the arrival of the prisoner in the receiving state, but for good cause shown in open court, the prisoner and his counsel being present, the court having jurisdiction over the matter may grant any necessary or reasonable continuance."

And Article IV(e) provides:

"If trial is not had on any indictment, information or complaint contemplated hereby prior to the prisoner's being returned to the original place of imprisonment ... such indictment, information or complaint shall not be of any further force or effect, and the court shall enter an order dismissing the same with prejudice."

Finally, with respect to both a prisoner demand for disposition under Article III and a member state request for temporary custody under Article IV, Article V(c) provides:

"If the appropriate authority shall refuse or fail to accept temporary custody of said person, or in the event that an action on the indictment, information or complaint on the basis of which a detainer has been lodged is not brought to trial within the period provided in Article III or Article IV hereof, the appropriate court of the jurisdiction where the indictment, information or complaint has been pending shall enter an order dismissing the same with prejudice, and any detainer based thereon shall cease to be of any force or effect."

A.

Article III, read in conjunction with the forms, works as follows. When a detainer is lodged by a member state against a prisoner incarcerated in another member state, the warden of the prison, using Form 1 ("Notice of Untried Indictment, Information or Complaint and of Right to Request Disposition"), informs the prisoner of the detainer and the prisoner's right to request disposition of the charge or charges upon which the detainer is based. ³ If the prisoner wants to request disposition, he or she signs Forms 1 and 2 and returns them to the warden. Upon receipt of Forms 1 and 2, the warden sends Forms 2 ("Inmate's Notice of Place of Confinement and Request for Disposition of Indictments, Informations or Complaints"), 3 ("Certificate of Inmate Status") and 4 ("Offer to Deliver Temporary Custody") by registered or certified mail to the "appropriate prosecuting official and court." ⁴ Upon receipt of Forms 2, 3 and 4, the prosecutor completes Form 7 ("Prosecutor's Acceptance of Temporary Custody Offered in Connection with a Prisoner's Request for Disposition of A Detainer"), in which the prosecutor certifies that the prisoner will be brought to trial within the time specified in Article III, and sends it to the warden. The prosecutor also completes Form 6 ("Evidence of Agent's Authority to Act for Receiving State"), which indicates both the date the prisoner will be transported from the sending state and the...