People v. Lewis, s. 82SA273

• Decision Date: 09 April 1984
• Docket Number: Nos. 82SA273,82SA274,s. 82SA273
• Citation: 680 P.2d 226
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Barry LEWIS, Defendant-Appellee. The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Christopher BOWMAN, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: Colorado Supreme Court

Page 226

680 P.2d 226

The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Barry LEWIS, Defendant-Appellee.

The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Christopher BOWMAN, Defendant-Appellee.

Nos. 82SA273, 82SA274.

Supreme Court of Colorado En Banc.

April 9, 1984.

Dennis E. Faulk, Dist. Atty., Canon City, William P. Alderton, Deputy Dist. Atty., Salida, Steven Rich, Deputy Dist. Atty., Fairplay, for plaintiff-appellant.

David Vela, Colo. State Public Defender, James England, Deputy Public Defender, Denver, for defendant-appellee Lewis.

L. Richard Musat, Hall & Evans, Denver, for defendant-appellee Bowman.

DUBOFSKY, Justice.

In these consolidated appeals, the People challenge district court orders dismissing charges filed against the defendants, Christopher Bowman and Barry Lewis. ¹ The district court based the dismissals on its holding that the state violated the defendants' rights to prompt notification of untried charges against them under the Uniform Mandatory Disposition of Detainers Act, sections 16-14-101 to -108, C.R.S. We reverse the district court's orders and remand the cases for further proceedings.

On October 21, 1981, the defendants escaped from the Colorado State Reformatory at Buena Vista. Police officers arrested the defendants the same day and returned them to the reformatory. On November 12, 1981, the People filed by information one count of escape ² against both Bowman and Lewis and two habitual criminal counts against Lewis. ³ The district court found that state officials did not inform the defendants of the charges pending against them until January 26, 1982, when the defendants were brought before the district court for arraignment. The defendants moved to dismiss the charges, asserting that the failure of prison officials to notify them of the charges against them for 76 days after those charges were filed violated their rights to prompt notification under section 16-14-102(2). ⁴

The Uniform Mandatory Disposition of Detainers Act (the Uniform Act) is one of several Colorado statutes implementing a defendant's right to a speedy trial, as provided in Article II, section 16 of the Colorado Constitution and the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. People v. Bean, 650 P.2d 565 (Colo.1982); People v. Swazo, 199 Colo. 486, 610 P.2d 1072 (1980). The Uniform Act gives any person in the custody of the Department of Corrections the right to request final disposition of any untried indictments, informations, and criminal complaints (charges) pending against him in Colorado. Section 16-14-102(1), C.R.S. The superintendent of the institution where the prisoner is confined must inform the prisoner promptly of any untried charges of which the superintendent has knowledge, and of the prisoner's right to request final disposition of those charges. Section 16-14-102(2), C.R.S. The superintendent is required to transmit any request made by a prisoner for final disposition of untried charges forthwith to the court having jurisdiction over the offenses charged and to the prosecuting official charged with prosecuting the offense. Section 16-14-103, C.R.S. Within ninety days after receipt by the court and the prosecuting official of a defendant's request for final disposition, the state must bring the defendant to trial. Section 16-14-104, C.R.S. Otherwise, unless the ninety day period is extended for cause or by stipulation, the charges must be dismissed. Id.

In this case the defendants allege that they are entitled to dismissal of the charges pending against them because of the reformatory superintendent's failure to notify them promptly of pending charges "of which the superintendent [had] knowledge." Section 16-14-102(2). The People argue that section 16-14-102(2) is not applicable unless the superintendent had actual knowledge of the pending charges, knowledge which the People claim was lacking in both cases. ⁵ The district court did not determine whether the superintendent had actual knowledge of the charges at issue, but, in its dismissal of the charges against Lewis, noted:

These cases involve charges against inmates who are alleged to have committed criminal acts in this county arising from their status as inmates of an institution which is located in this same county. In these circumstances, a prosecutor should be charged with knowledge of the mandates of the Uniform Act, and be held to the duties of an official which are described there, even though the Uniform Act does not specifically include prosecutors within its parameters. Due process and fundamental fairness would prevent a prosecutor from violating inmates' rights to prompt notice and advisement where the statutory procedures are specific with respect to the duties of prison officials.

The district court, in its order dismissing the escape charge against Bowman, held that "[w]here the superintendent (i.e., prison officials), is the one who is bringing the complaint against the prisoner, he must be deemed to know that there is an untried charge against the prisoner ...." ⁶

Relying on the explication of the purposes of the Uniform Act in People v. Swazo, 199 Colo. 486, 610 P.2d 1072 (1980), and People v. Bean, 44 Colo.App. 373, 619 P.2d 72 (1980), affirmed 650 P.2d 565 (Colo.1982), the district court noted that a primary purpose of the act is to allow prisoners to insist upon speedy disposition of untried charges so that prisoner rehabilitation programs will not be continually disrupted by ongoing prosecutions. Accord, People v. Mascarenas, 666 P.2d 101 (Colo.1983). Since the degree of disruption of rehabilitation programs by prosecution of untried charges does not depend upon whether the prison superintendent has actual knowledge of the charges, the district court read the Uniform Act to require the district attorney to inform the superintendent of any charges filed. The district court accomplished this result by imputing knowledge of the district attorney's office to the prison superintendent, at least where the prison supervisor "is the one who is bringing the complaint against the prisoner" and where the charges are filed in the county in which the institution having custody of the prisoner is located. Implicit in the district court's opinion is the conclusion that, in the context of the Uniform Act's policy of preventing disruption of rehabilitative programs, it would not make sense to read section 16-14-102(2) as applying only to charges known to the prison superintendent. ⁷

Preventing the disruption of rehabilitation programs, however, is not the only purpose of the Uniform Act. Another important purpose of the act provides a basis for distinguishing untried charges of which prison officials have actual knowledge from other untried charges. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in United States v. Ford, 550 F.2d 732 (2d Cir.1977), aff'd sub nom. United States v. Mauro, 436 U.S. 340, 98 S.Ct. 1834, 56 L.Ed.2d 329 (1978), a thorough and well-documented opinion, summarized the policy concerns of the drafters of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers. ⁸ Stated the Court, inter alia: Prison authorities often accorded detainers considerable weight in making decisions with respect to the terms and conditions of the prisoner's incarceration and release on parole. Sometimes the prisoner would automatically be held under maximum security. Sometimes he would be ineligible for special work programs, athletic programs, release for visits to relatives' death beds or funerals, or special minimum security facilities. Often detainers precluded the granting of parole. Despite these serious consequences, virtually any law enforcement officer--prosecutor, policeman, or judge--could file a detainer without any procedural prerequisites. No pending indictment or other formal notification of charges was generally required. Indeed, it was estimated that as many as 50% of all detainers were allowed to lapse on the prisoner's release, without any attempts at prosecution by the jurisdiction that had filed the detainer. There were even cases in which the only reason the detainer had been filed was to increase the severity of the prisoner's sentence. Thus detainers imposed major unjustifiable hardships on prisoners, and, prior to adoption of the Agreement on Detainers, there was nothing a prisoner could do about them.

530 F.2d at 737-739 (footnotes omitted).

This particular problem--which the Uniform Act was enacted, in...