People v. Jacobs, 28446
Citation | 596 P.2d 1187,198 Colo. 75 |
Decision Date | 18 June 1979 |
Docket Number | No. 28446,28446 |
Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alvin Pierre JACOBS, a/k/a Donald Peterson, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | Supreme Court of Colorado |
J. D. MacFarlane, Atty. Gen., David W. Robbins, Deputy Atty. Gen., Edward G. Donovan, Sol. Gen., David Schwartz, Asst. Atty. Gen., Appellate Section, Lynne M. Ford, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for plaintiff-appellee.
Jerry L. Stevens, Denver, for defendant-appellant.
The defendant, Alvin Pierre Jacobs, was convicted of first-degree sexual assault, section 18-3-402, C.R.S.1973 (1978 Repl.Vol. 8), and second-degree burglary, section 18-4-203, C.R.S.1973 (1978 Repl.Vol. 8). We affirm.
Defendant has sought review of his conviction on the basis of nine separate allegations of error. Only two of his contentions merit discussion.
Defendant's first contention is that the state, in the course of its extradition and trial of defendant, did not comply with the provisions of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers, section 24-60-501, Et seq., C.R.S.1973. Of course, failure on the part of the state to comply with the mandates of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers would require dismissal of the charges against the defendant with prejudice. Hughes v. District Court, Colo. 593 P.2d 702 (1979).
We first note that the defendant has raised this issue for the first time in this court. However, since compliance with the Interstate Agreement on Detainers is a jurisdictional prerequisite to the state's ability to try a defendant on the charges against him, noncompliance may be raised for the first time on appeal. See Art. III(d); Hughes v. District Court, supra.
Harrington v. District Court, 192 Colo. 351, 559 P.2d 225 (1977). See also, Hicks v. People, 148 Colo. 26, 364 P.2d 877 (1961); People v. Lopez, Colo.App., 587 P.2d 792 (1978).
Article III of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers provides, in part, that:
. . . . . . .
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Tarango
...and, if it is not sent, generally because the prisoner bypassed the custodian, the IAD is not invoked. See People v. Jacobs, 198 Colo. 75, 596 P.2d 1187 (1979) (en banc); Greathouse v. State, 156 Ga.App. 491, 274 S.E.2d 835 (1980); People v. Collins, 85 Ill.App.3d 1056, 41 Ill.Dec. 373, 407......
-
People v. Moody
...contends that an IAD violation is jurisdictional and can be raised at any time. We agree with the People's position. People v. Jacobs, 198 Colo. 75, 596 P.2d 1187 (1979), states that compliance with the IAD is a jurisdictional prerequisite to the state's ability to try a defendant on the ch......
-
People v. Johnson, 80SA123
...of competence demanded of attorneys in criminal cases." People v. Blalock, 197 Colo. 320, 592 P.2d 406 (1979). See People v. Jacobs, 198 Colo. 75, 596 P.2d 1187 (1979); People v. Lucero, Colo.App., 623 P.2d 424 (1980). Johnson, however, contends that defense counsel should have made a motio......
-
Johnson v. People
...the state failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of the IAD. See id. at 402, 593 P.2d at 706. In People v. Jacobs, 198 Colo. 75, 78, 596 P.2d 1187, 1188 (1979), a case similar to this one, we again concluded that the requirements of the IAD are mandatory, and compliance with its m......