Reed v. People

• Decision Date: 02 November 1987
• Docket Number: No. 86SA186,86SA186
• Citation: 745 P.2d 235
• Parties: Robert Lee REED, Petitioner-Appellant, v. The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Respondent-Appellee.
• Court: Colorado Supreme Court

Page 235

745 P.2d 235

Robert Lee REED, Petitioner-Appellant, v. The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 86SA186.

Supreme Court of Colorado En Banc.

Nov. 2, 1987.

Robert Lee Reed, pro se.

Duane Woodard, Atty. Gen., Charles B. Howe, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen., Richard H. Forman, Sol. Gen., Curt P. Kriksciun, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for respondent-appellee.

VOLLACK, Justice.

The petitioner-appellant, Robert Lee Reed (hereinafter Reed or the defendant) appeals from the district court's order dismissing his Motion to Show Cause. His motion claimed that a detainer had been wrongfully placed in Reed's Colorado Department of Corrections file, resulting in violations of his constitutional rights. We hold that the district court properly dismissed the defendant's motion, and affirm the district court's order.

I.

At the time of these proceedings, the defendant was incarcerated in the Colorado Department of Corrections (hereinafter DOC). While incarcerated, a detainer was entered in Reed's DOC file; the detainer indicated that Reed was wanted by the Arizona authorities because he had an unserved sentence in Arizona. Reed had been convicted of several felonies in Arizona in 1981, and the Arizona court had imposed an 11.25 year prison sentence. The record is not entirely clear, but evidently Reed escaped from the Arizona DOC sometime between 1981 and 1983, leaving part of his Arizona sentence unserved.

After escaping from the Arizona DOC, the defendant traveled to Colorado. He then committed felonies in this state, and was convicted and sentenced to the Colorado DOC. After learning that Reed was incarcerated in Colorado, Arizona authorities filed this detainer to notify Colorado authorities that after Reed completed his Colorado sentence, he was wanted by Arizona because of his unserved sentence there. The detainer was placed in Reed's DOC file.

The defendant filed a pro se Motion to Show Cause, asking the Fremont County District Court to issue an order requiring the Colorado DOC superintendent to show cause "why a purported detainer from the State of Arizona was permitted to be lodged against the appellant at his place of confinement." The district court ordered the motion dismissed, ruling that the detainer was only a flagging device to alert the Colorado authorities that Arizona had an interest in Reed. The court noted that Reed might be subject to extradition upon completion of his Colorado sentence, and that the "Detainers Act," §§ 24-60-501 to -507, 10 C.R.S. (1982) was not applicable. ¹ This action was evidently taken without a hearing.

The defendant filed a Motion for Reconsideration with the district court, arguing that the detainer was not a flagging device, but rather a "real active detainer which has collateral consequences attached to it." ² In the Motion for Reconsideration, Reed for the first time described his earlier Motion to Show Cause as a "Habeas Corpus Action." The Motion for Reconsideration was denied. Reed then appealed to this court, asking that we reverse the trial court's dismissal of his Motion to Show Cause (which he describes in his Opening Brief as "essentially a writ of habeas corpus").

Reed's argument is that placement of the detainer in his DOC file deprived him of his constitutional rights, because it violated both § 16-19-104, 8A C.R.S. (1986) (governing requirements of extradition demands), ³ and our holding in Norrod v. Bower, 187 Colo. 421, 532 P.2d 330 (1975). In response, the Attorney General contends that (1) defendant's appeal is not properly before this court as a habeas corpus proceeding, (2) the detainer was nothing more than a "flagging device" used to alert Colorado officials of Arizona's continued interest in Reed due to his unserved sentence there, and (3) even if Reed's confinement was adversely affected by the detainer in his file, his inmate status does not provide for a constitutional right to a particular classification within a correctional institution.

II.

A.

A writ of habeas corpus is a limited remedy, governed by the Colorado Habeas Corpus Act, sections 13-45-101 to -119, 6 C.R.S. (1973 & 1986 Supp.). The Act specifically defines the circumstances under which relief can be granted. ⁴ "The intervention by the judiciary into the administration of corrections programs by executive officials is reserved for most serious violations of fundamental rights, and an allegation to that effect is essential to any claim for habeas corpus relief." White v. Rickets, 684 P.2d 239, 241 (Colo.1984) (emphasis added). However, it is also true that "any restriction in excess of legal restraint that substantially infringes on basic rights may be remedied through habeas corpus, even if total discharge does not result." Marshall v. Kort, 690 P.2d 219, 222 (Colo.1984) (emphasis added).

If a petition for a writ of habeas corpus is insufficient on its face, a court is correct in denying it. King v. Tinsley, 158 Colo. 99, 100, 405 P.2d 689, 690 (1965). If a petition establishes a prima facie case, the petitioner is then entitled to a hearing. Osborne v. Van Cleave, 166 Colo. 398, 443 P.2d 988 (1968). In a habeas corpus proceeding, which is civil, the only parties before the trial court are the petitioner and the person holding the petitioner in custody, and the only question to be resolved is whether the custodian has authority to deprive the petitioner of his liberty. Stilley v. Tinsley, 153 Colo. 66, 385 P.2d 677 (1963). Judicial inquiry is limited to a determination of the validity of the petitioner's confinement at the time of the hearing. White v. Rickets, 684 P.2d 239, 242 (Colo.1984); People v. Pitcher, 192 Colo. 195, 557 P.2d 395 (1976).

We agree with the Attorney General's argument that Reed's complaint is not appropriate for the remedy of habeas corpus. The defendant is not attacking the validity of his Colorado detention. Rather, he seeks review of the propriety of Arizona's detainer, and the resulting change in his DOC classification. In Russell v. Cooper, 724 P.2d 1302 (Colo.1986), we addressed "the issue of whether a prisoner serving a sentence in Colorado may attack the validity of a foreign detainer lodged against him through a habeas corpus petition, even if the foreign state has not yet made a demand for temporary custody." Id. at 1303 (emphasis added). In Russell, the defendant was incarcerated in Colorado when Oregon lodged a detainer against him, on the basis of untried charges pending against Russell in Oregon. Id. at 1302, 1304. The defendant's complaint in Russell was the same as the petitioner's complaint here: that the existence of an allegedly invalid detainer "significantly restrict[ed] a prisoner's security classification and rehabilitative opportunities and is therefore a proper subject for habeas corpus relief." Id. at 1303.

Russell sought dismissal of the Oregon charges through a habeas corpus proceeding. We held that since there had not been a disposition of the Oregon charges, a habeas corpus proceeding in Colorado was not the proper remedy. Id. at 1304. We also disagreed with the petitioner's contention that restriction of his security classification and rehabilitative opportunities were a proper subject for habeas corpus relief. ⁵ Id. at 1303.

The same analysis applies here. Reed is attempting to attack the validity of the Arizona detainer through a habeas corpus proceeding, even though Arizona has not yet sought Reed's return to Arizona's custody. The facts presented here are not appropriate for a habeas corpus proceeding because the petitioner is not attacking the legality of his Colorado incarceration. Arizona's interest arises from Reed's unserved sentence rather than pending, untried charges, and extradition is based upon "the substantive criminal offense for which the appellant has not yet completed his sentence." Morgan v. Miller, 197 Colo. 341, 342, 593 P.2d 357, 358 (1979).

As a result, the petitioner's argument that he was denied due process because there was no hearing is without merit. He is entitled to a hearing only if his petition for a writ of habeas corpus meets a prima facie showing that his confinement is invalid.

B.

Reed also contends that the detainer in his file is an active detainer, resulting in a violation of his constitutional rights because of his DOC reclassification. The district court described the detainer as a "flagging device." The defendant asks that we analyze the detainer in his file under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (hereinafter IAD). ⁶ However, the IAD does not apply to this case. As stated above, Arizona's interest in Reed arises from his unserved sentence, not pending charges. "The purpose of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers is to encourage the expeditious and orderly disposition of charges pending in one state against a person imprisoned in another state." People v. Quackenbush, 687 P.2d 448, 450 (Colo.1984) (emphasis added). Reed has had disposition of the charges, and this is not a detainer for purposes of the IAD.

The United States Supreme Court addressed this terminology problem in Moody v. Daggett, 429 U.S. 78, 97 S.Ct. 274, 50 L.Ed.2d 236 (1976). In Moody, the defendant was convicted and sentenced in federal court. After serving part of his sentence and while on parole, he killed two people in Massachusetts and was convicted there of manslaughter and second degree murder. Both crimes were parole violations. After the defendant was incarcerated for the homicides, the United States Board of Parole "issued but did not execute a parole violator warrant; this was lodged with prison officials as a 'detainer.' " Id. at 80, 97 S.Ct. at 275.

In footnote 2 of the Moody opinion, the Court explained:

A detainer in this context is an internal administrative mechanism to assure that an inmate subject to an unexpired term of confinement will not be released from custody until the jurisdiction asserting a parole violation has had an opportunity to act--in this...