Rudisill v. District Court, Second Judicial Dist., 23878
| Decision Date | 28 April 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 23878,23878 |
| Citation | 453 P.2d 598,169 Colo. 66 |
| Parties | James P. RUDISILL, Jr., Petitioner, v. DISTRICT COURT, SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT, and the People of the State of Colorado, Respondents. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
James P. Rudisill, Jr., pro se.
Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., John P. Moore, Deputy Atty. Gen., Michael T. Haley, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for respondents.
This is an original proceeding. During the month of June 1964, Petitioner was arrest by the Denver police department and charged with two counts of robbery. He was released on bond. Trial was set for Count 1 on December 11, 1964, and for Count 2 on December 22, 1964, but the Petitioner failed to appear for trial on either date. The Petitioner was arrested in Los Angeles on or about January 31, 1965, and was charged with first degree robbery and with violation of probation. He pleaded guilty to both of those charges and was sentenced to state prison in California. On April 25, 1966, he requested that the Denver district attorney drop the detainer which he had filed in California. This request was refused. Thereafter, Petitioner made at least two formal demands for a speedy trial in the district court, both of which were denied.
Thereafter, the Petitioner presented to the District Court of Denver a motion to proceed In absentia, a motion for appointment of counsel and a motion to dismiss the two charges filed against him. The district court refused to rule on these motions and ordered them held in abeyance until the return of the Petitioner to Colorado. The Petitioner the filed an original proceeding in this Court for a writ of mandamus to compel the district court to rule on his motions. We, at first, denied the Petitioner's request for relief, but thereafter we issued a rule to show cause. The district court filed its answer and the matter is at issue before this Court.
We must now determine what course must be taken with respect to Petitioner's motions now before the district court. The way has been partially charted for us in a recent decision of the United States Supreme Court, Smith v. Hooey, 393 U.S. 374, 89 S.Ct. 575, 21 L.Ed.2d 607. There it was held that the fact that an accused was imprisoned by a foreign jurisdiction did not Ipso facto deprive him of his rights to a speedy trial in another jurisdiction. For the reasons stated by Mr. Justice Stewart in that opinion, there devolves upon the prosecuting attorney in the accusing state the duty to exercise good faith...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hughey v. State
...v. State, 93 Idaho 915, 478 P.2d 295, 297 (1970); Renton v. State, 480 P.2d 624, 626 (Okla.Crim.App.1970); Rudisill v. Dist.Ct., Second Judicial Dist., 453 P.2d 598, 599 (Colo.1969); see also Saxton v. State, 394 So.2d 871, 875 (Miss.1981). This good-faith requirement applies as soon as the......
-
People v. Bost, 86SA453
...(1959); nor does imprisonment in a foreign jurisdiction, Egbert v. People, 169 Colo. 169, 454 P.2d 811 (1969); Rudisill v. District Court, 169 Colo. 66, 453 P.2d 598 (1969), cert. denied, 395 U.S. 925, 89 S.Ct. 1779, 23 L.Ed.2d 241. Clearly, "the right to a prompt inquiry into criminal char......
-
Watson v. People
...demanded. 393 U.S. at 383, 89 S.Ct. at 579. The Hooey rationale has been applied by this court with similar results. Rudisill v. District Court, 169 Colo. 66, 453 P.2d 598, cert. denied, 395 U.S. 925, 89 S.Ct. 1779, 23 L.Ed.2d 241 (1969). We believe that section 18-1-405(6)(d) must be const......
-
Scott v. People, 24683
...his jurisdiction by the use of a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum when that procedure is available to him. Rudisill v. District Court, 169 Colo. 66, 453 P.2d 598 (1969); Rader v. People, 138 Colo. 397, 334 P.2d 437 (1959); Dickey v. Florida, 398 U.S. 30, 90 S.Ct. 1564, 26 L.Ed.2d 26 (1......