Remick v. Lopes, 12815

• Decision Date: 19 May 1987
• Docket Number: No. 12815,12815
• Citation: 203 Conn. 494,525 A.2d 502
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: Peter H. REMICK v. Raymond M. LOPES, Commissioner of Correction.

Page 502

525 A.2d 502

203 Conn. 494

Peter H. REMICK v. Raymond M. LOPES, Commissioner of Correction.

No. 12815.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Argued Jan. 15, 1987.

Decided May 19, 1987.

Alphonse DiBenedetto, Sp. Public Defender, for appellant (petitioner).

L.D. McCallum, Asst. Atty. Gen., with whom, on the brief, was Joseph I. Lieberman, Atty. Gen., for appellee (respondent).

Before HEALEY, SHEA, SANTANIELLO, CALLAHAN and MORAGHAN, JJ.

CALLAHAN, Associate Justice.

This is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in which the petitioner is attempting to have declared null and void in the Superior Court of this state detainers filed by sister states under the provisions of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD). General Statutes § 54-186. Specifically, the petitioner seeks to nullify three detainers, ¹ one from Maine, and two from Massachusetts, and also to avoid being transferred by the defendant to the temporary custody of Massachusetts authorities for trial. ² He has appealed from the trial court's judgment denying his claims for relief. We find no error.

The facts are essentially undisputed. On March 5, 1982, the petitioner was sentenced to eleven concurrent fifteen year terms for robbery in the first degree. See General Statutes § 53a-134. Prior to sentencing, while a pretrial detainee at the Community Correctional Center at Bridgeport (CCC), three detainers were lodged against him, one from Maine, and one from each of two counties in Massachusetts. At that time, he was informed of his right to request disposition of the charges in these states after he was sentenced in Connecticut, pursuant to General Statutes § 54-186. After the petitioner's sentencing, he was returned to the CCC to await his transfer to the Connecticut Correctional Institution at Somers (Somers). On March 8, 1982, he spoke with a correctional counselor at the CCC and orally requested the initiation of the IAD procedure to arrange for disposition of the outstanding detainers against him. The counselor agreed and indicated to the petitioner that the proper papers would be drafted. On the same day, the petitioner also drafted letters to the Superior Courts in Pittsfield, Massachusetts, and Wiscasset, Maine, making "Requests for a speedy trial on detainers your jurisdiction has lodged against me per the Interstate Agreement on Detainer Act."

The counselor at Bridgeport, however, never processed the paperwork for the petitioner before March 12, 1982, the date on which the petitioner was transferred to Somers. During his first week at Somers, however, the record office supervisor had delivered to him the three warrants lodged against him to which a note was affixed stating: "If you wish to have a speedy trial on the enclosed charges, write a letter to the court and request a final disposition. Attach a request form to your letter and send it to the Record Office. The Record Office will prepare the necessary cover letter and forward both to the Court, registered mail." The petitioner, however, refused to acknowledge receipt of the warrants, or to ask for the necessary forms to make the request under the IAD, claiming that he had done all that was required of him when he was at the CCC. Pursuant to institutional policy, the records supervisor at Somers mailed the three detainers to the petitioner the next day by regular mail.

Thereafter, between March and August of 1982, the petitioner wrote letters to Somers officials asking about his "speedy trial" requests; he never sent, however, a written notice to the respondent pursuant to article III(b) of the IAD requesting a disposition of the three detainers. On September 10, 1982, the district attorney for Berkshire County, Massachusetts, sent a formal request pursuant to article IV of the IAD asking for temporary custody of the petitioner. The petitioner then filed this habeas corpus petition, challenging the transfer request, and seeking to have the three detainers declared null and void. He argues that the relief sought should be granted because Connecticut failed to comply with the provisions of the IAD, which resulted in the receiving state's failure to bring him to trial within 180 days as required by article III(a). The defendant argues that the petitioner never properly invoked the provisions of the IAD so as to trigger the speedy trial provisions of the agreement.

The trial court did not directly address whether the petitioner properly invoked the provisions of the IAD. Rather, it denied his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, finding that any remedial relief under the IAD must be sought in the receiving state. It also concluded with respect to the request for temporary custody that since the petitioner's case rests upon his assertion that he had made a valid request for final disposition, he must be deemed to have consented to being returned to Massachusetts under the IAD.

I

The threshold issue in this appeal is whether Connecticut has jurisdiction as the "sending state" under the IAD to entertain an action by a prisoner seeking to have detainers lodged by a "receiving state" declared null and void in this state. ³ We conclude that the policy considerations which prompted the adoption of the IAD by the majority of states, support the sending state's authority to entertain such an action.

"The IAD 'is a congressionally sanctioned interstate compact the interpretation of which presents a question of federal law.' Cuyler v. Adams, 449 U.S. 433, 442, 101 S.Ct. 703, 708-09, 66 L.Ed.2d 641 (1981). The decisions of both federal and other state courts therefore may guide our interpretation of its provisions." State v. Braswell, 194 Conn. 297, 304, 481 A.2d 413 (1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1112, 105 S.Ct. 793, 83 L.Ed.2d 786 (1985); see generally annot., 98 A.L.R.3d 160. "It has been generally held that under the IAD, courts in the state in which the prisoner is incarcerated [i.e., the sending or asylum state] lack authority to dismiss out-of-state charges even though a prisoner claims that the 'receiving state's' prosecuting authorities have violated his right to a speedy trial under Article III(a). State ex rel. Garner v. Gray, 59 Wis.2d 323, 208 N.W.2d 161 (1973); Baker v. Schubin, 72 Misc.2d 413, 339 N.Y.S.2d 360 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1972); State ex rel. Chamberlain v. Martinco, 288 Minn. 231, 179 N.W.2d 286 (1970); State v. West, 79 N.J.Super. 379, 191 A.2d 758 (Super.Ct.App.Div.1963)." Hickey v. State, 349 N.W.2d 772, 776-77 (Iowa App.1984); cf. Mokone v. Fenton, 710 F.2d 998, 1002-1003 (3d Cir.1983); Stewart v. Sheriff of Leavenworth County, 5 Kan.App.2d 593, 595, 620 P.2d 352 (1981).

We have also concluded that the asylum court, lacking extraterritorial jurisdiction, is powerless to dismiss the underlying charge. Narel v. Liburdi, 185 Conn. 562, 565, 441 A.2d 177 (1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 928, 102 S.Ct. 1974, 72 L.Ed.2d 443 (1982). The trial court, relying on our decision in Narel v. Liburdi, supra, and Giardino v. Bourbeau, 193 Conn. 116, 127, 475 A.2d 298 (1984), concluded that it was without jurisdiction to grant the petitioner any relief. The trial court's reliance on these decisions was misplaced, however, because neither decision addressed the issue presented in this case. Instead, those cases support the proposition that the asylum court does not have jurisdiction to dismiss the out-of-state charges. The petitioner, however, was not seeking such relief, but was asking only that the detainers be declared null and void and removed from his file, and that Massachusetts's request for custody be denied.

While we have never addressed the issue presented in this appeal, other courts have held that while the "sending state" may not dismiss the charges in the "receiving state," the "sending state" has authority to dismiss detainer warrants lodged by sister states where it appears that the underlying accusatory instrument itself is subject to dismissal in the courts of the "receiving state" for failure to comply with the speedy trial provisions of the IAD. Hickey v. State, supra, 777; Baker v. Schubin, supra, 72 Misc.2d 413, 419, 339 N.Y.S.2d 360; State v. Sykes, 91 Wis.2d 436, 439, 283 N.W.2d 446 (1979); see Buchanan v. Michigan Department of Corrections, 50 Mich.App. 1, 212 N.W.2d 745 (1973). These decisions, noting the adverse effects upon a prisoner resulting from a detainer being lodged against him, stressed the importance of ascertaining whether such detainers are valid. As noted in an article on the detainer system, "a prison inmate with a detainer filed against him because of outstanding charges in another jurisdiction may suffer several disabilities, ranging from mandatory maximum-security classification to exclusion from vocational rehabilitation programs and even to possible ineligibility for parole." D. Wexler & R. Hershey, "Criminal Detainers in a Nutshell," 7 Crim.L.Bull. 753 (1971); see generally E. Dauber, "Reforming the Detainer System; a Case Study" 7 Crim.L.Bull. 669 (1971).

The concern of the drafters of the Uniform Act on Detainers with the harmful effects of detainers is reflected in the act's statement of purpose. Article I ⁴ provides in pertinent part that "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...." (Emphasis added.) A receiving state's failure to comply with the IAD's speedy trial provisions would violate the agreement's express purpose by denying speedy disposition of any pending charges. A fortiori, the refusal of the sending state to entertain an action to remove a detainer from a prisoner's file, based upon such a violation, would violate the express purpose of determining "the proper status of any and all detainers." ⁵

We conclude, therefore, that the trial court's interpretation of the IAD as precluding the...