People v. Beamon

• Decision Date: 08 May 1978
• Docket Number: Docket No. 77-822
• Citation: People v. Beamon, 83 Mich.App. 121, 268 N.W.2d 310 (Mich. App. 1978)
• Parties: , 98 A.L.R.3d 149 PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jessie BEAMON, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan

Page 310

268 N.W.2d 310

83 Mich.App. 121, 98 A.L.R.3d 149

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.Jessie BEAMON, Defendant-Appellee.

Docket No. 77-822.

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

May 8, 1978.

Released for Publication Aug. 1, 1978.

Carl Ziemba, Detroit, for plaintiff-appellant.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol.Gen., William L. Cahalan, Pros.Atty., Edward R. Wilson, Appellate Chief, Asst. Pros.Atty., for defendant-appellee.

Before KELLY, P. J., and T. M. BURNS and MAHER, JJ.

MAHER, Judge.

Defendant was charged, on May 25, 1973, with first-degree murder.He was tried twice upon this information and both trials ended in a declaration of mistrial by the trial court when the jury could not agree upon a verdict.On August 2, 1974, after the second mistrial, defendant was released on bond of $250.While at large on bail, defendant was convicted in United States District Court of a Federal crime.On April 9, 1975, he was sentenced to a term of 5 years in the Federal prison in Terre Haute, Indiana.

In the meantime, a third trial on the state murder charge was repeatedly delayed until trial was finally set for June 2, 1976.On May 5, 1976, defendant filed a motion to dismiss for want of prosecution, alleging that he had been denied his right to a speedy trial.

Before the motion was filed, the administrator of the Federal prison in Terre Haute, on May 3, 1976, sent a letter to the clerk of Recorder's Court informing the court of the status of defendant.On May 11, the court clerk responded to the Federal prison, stating that defendant had a June 2, 1976, trial date and referring the Federal authorities to Recorder's Court Judge Elvin Davenport for further information.

On May 24, 1976, a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum was issued, signed by Judge Joseph Gillis of Detroit Recorder's Court.The writ directed authorities at the Federal penitentiary in Terre Haute to return defendant to Michigan for a third trial in Recorder's Court on the information charging first-degree murder.

Defendant was released from the Federal prison on June 1 for a June 2 trial date.Defendant's file also includes records from the Federal prison, disclosing that while defendant was released to Michigan authorities June 1 on the basis of the writ, a "detainer" was not placed on defendant until June 3, 1976, two days after he had been sent to Michigan.

Following the transfer of temporary custody, defendant was placed on trial in Detroit Recorder's Court on June 2, 1976.The trial was terminated by the trial court's declaration of a mistrial on June 9, 1976.

On June 17, a new trial date was set for October 6, 1976.The Recorder's Court discharged the writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum and the Federal authorities then returned defendant to the custody of the Federal penitentiary at Terre Haute, Indiana.

Some time later, apparently on September 29, 1976, the Michigan authorities again issued a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum for the return of the defendant from the Federal penitentiary at Terre Haute to the city of Detroit to stand trial for the fourth time on the information charging defendant with murder of the first degree.The second writ was honored by the Federal authorities and defendant was transported and transferred from the Federal penitentiary to the State of Michigan a second time.

Defendant had, in the intervening time, requested administrative relief from the Federal prison authorities, asking that any subsequent writ from the Michigan officials be denied for failure to comply with the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act.The request was denied and defendant advised to seek relief in the courts or appeal to the Regional Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons.

After the October 6 trial date was postponed, the defendant filed a motion, on October 29, 1976, to dismiss for loss of jurisdiction, alleging noncompliance with the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act.On December 15, 1976, defendant filed a motion to dismiss, again alleging failure to comply with the Detainers Act.

A hearing was held on defendant's motion, after which the information was dismissed.The trial judge also stayed the order, pending the prosecutor's appeal of the dismissal.This appeal is brought by the prosecutor from the trial court's dismissal of the first-degree murder information.

The trial court, in its February 3, 1977, ruling, dismissed the information on the grounds that the 180-day rule of Article III(a) of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act,M.C.L.A. § 780.601 et seq.;M.S.A. § 4.147(1) et seq., had been violated.The act is a uniform law enacted by 46 states, the District of Columbia, and the Federal government to facilitate the disposition of charges in one jurisdiction when the accused is incarcerated in another jurisdiction.

To prevent abuses and to protect the constitutional right to a speedy trial, the act contains strict guidelines on the manner and time in which the detainer provisions are to be enforced.Article III of the act provides a prisoner with a procedure for bringing about a prompt disposition of detainers placed against a defendant.Article III(a) states:

"(a) 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 officers' 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.The request of the prisoner shall be accompanied by a certificate of the appropriate official having custody of the prisoner, stating the term of commitment under which the prisoner is being held, the time already served, the time remaining to be served on the sentence, the amount of good time earned, the time of parole eligibility of the prisoner, and any decisions of the state parole agency relating to the prisoner."(Emphasis supplied.)

The act thus provides that a prisoner can demand to be brought to trial within 180 days on any untried indictment, information or complaint which is the basis for a detainer lodged against him.Article III furnishes a mechanism, capable of being invoked by a prisoner, to insure the constitutional guarantee of a speedy trial.

The trial court in the case at bar erred, however, when it held that a motion for speedy trial, such as defendant made on May 5, 1976, which made no mention of the Detainer Act, substantially complied with Article III.While the provisions of the act may guarantee a speedy trial, a mere motion for speedy trial does not constitute the requisite request to dispose of detainers lodged against defendant which exceeded the 180-day provision.The act explains specifically in Article III the actions a defendant must take to initiate the procedures in the statute.A speedy trial motion is an inadequate measure with which to invoke the protection of the act.

"The Agreement provides that all charges must be dismissed if a prisoner is not brought to trial within 180 days after he invokes his rights under Article III.Since this provision places an additional burden on the prosecuting authorities, it is fair to insist that the prisoner satisfy the preliminary requirements * * *.In order to insure that all parties concerned have a fair opportunity to protect their rights, the Agreement requires that a prisoner be informed of his rights under the Agreement and that he inform both the prosecuting attorney and the trial court of his whereabouts and his invocation of Article III procedures."Edmond v. Department of Corrections, 78 Mich.App. 196, 203, 259 N.W.2d 423, 426(1977).

In Edmond, the defendant filed a motion for a speedy trial but refused a direct offer to make a request for trial under Article III.While the Court conceded the possibility that something less than perfect compliance might be sufficient in some cases, it held that "the plaintiff did not sufficiently comply with the requirements of Article III * * * to qualify under a substantial compliance standard".78 Mich.App. at 203, 259 N.W.2d at 426.

In People v. Butcher, 46 Mich.App. 40, 207 N.W.2d 430(1973), the Court found that for purposes of the act a request for a speedy trial was deficient.

"Defendant next claims that the trial court had no jurisdiction to try the defendant because the proceedings violated the interstate agreement on detainers act, M.C.L.A. § 780.601;M.S.A. § 4.147(1), since he was not tried within 180 days of his request for trial.Assuming the act to be applicable, to hold that defense counsel's alleged request for a speedy trial made in pretrial conference on February 22, 1971, substantially complied with the act would emasculate the act's rather specific notice requirements."46 Mich.App. at 44, 207 N.W.2d at 433.

Under both Edmond and Butcher, the trial court in the instant case was wrong in holding that the motion limited to the constitutional right of a speedy trial invoked the running of the 180-day provision.

Were we, nevertheless, to assume that the 180-day period allowed in the act began to run as of the date of the speedy trial motion, there was no violation of the rule.The statute states that a defendant must be "brought to trial" within 180 days after he or she sends the required notice and demand for disposition.A trial was commenced on June 2, 1976, less than one month...