State ex rel. Wishom v. Bryant
| Docket Number | SC99949 |
| Decision Date | 29 August 2023 |
| Parties | STATE EX REL. STEVEN WISHOM, Relator, v. THE HONORABLE PAULA P. BRYANT, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
1
STATE EX REL. STEVEN WISHOM, Relator,
v.
THE HONORABLE PAULA P. BRYANT, Respondent.
No. SC99949
Supreme Court of Missouri, En Banc
August 29, 2023
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN PROHIBITION
W. Brent Powell, Judge
Steven Wishom petitions this Court for a writ of prohibition barring the circuit court from taking any further action in Wishom's pending criminal case other than to dismiss the charges pending against him. In his writ petition, Wishom alleges the circuit court violated the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD) when it continued his criminal case and failed to conduct a trial within 180 days of his request to dispose of his pending charges. Because the State waived any argument that Wishom failed to properly invoke his rights under the IAD and the circuit court lacked good cause to continue Wishom's trial when all the parties were ready and prepared to try his pending case within the 180-day period, the IAD mandates dismissal of Wishom's case. For these reasons, the Court makes permanent its
preliminary writ prohibiting the circuit court from taking any further action in Wishom's pending criminal matter other than dismissing the charges.
Background
On January 29, 2020, the State filed a complaint in the St. Louis circuit court charging Steven Wishom with rape, sodomy, and sexual abuse.[1] Wishom was arrested and detained, and retained counsel appeared on his behalf on March 4, 2020. After posting a monetary bond, Wishom was taken into federal custody on criminal charges in May 2020. He ultimately pleaded guilty to those federal charges and was sentenced to 36 months in federal prison.
In February 2022, while Wishom was serving his federal sentence at a penitentiary in Kentucky, a warrant issued for his arrest on the state charges in St. Louis. Based on this warrant, a detainer was lodged with the federal penitentiary in Kentucky preventing his release after he finished serving his sentence. Pursuant the IAD, Wishom filed a request to dispose of the St. Louis charges. The circuit court and the State received this request on April 14, 2022. If properly invoked, the IAD required the State to dispose of Wishom's pending charges within 180 days of the State's and the court's receipt of his request to dispose of the charges.
In response to Wishom's request, the State, on April 20, 2022, sent the federal prison a request to take temporary custody of Wishom. The State's request for temporary custody
was made pursuant to a form titled "IAD/STATE WRIT - PROSECUTOR'S CERTIFICATION," which required the State to choose between two separate boxes indicating whether the request for temporary custody was made pursuant to the "IAD" or "State Writ." The State checked the IAD box, causing the form to state: "I, [Assistant Circuit Attorney], hereby request temporary custody of Steven Wishom via IAD." Federal officials at the penitentiary thereafter sent an offer to deliver temporary custody of Wishom to the State under the IAD to dispose of his pending charges. In addition, the federal prison sent a certificate of Wishom's inmate status, stating the length of his federal sentence, the time already served, the time remaining to be served on the sentence, the amount of good time earned, the time of parole eligibility, and any decision of the parole agency governing his federal sentence. This certificate was received by the State and filed by the circuit court.
The State received custody of Wishom on June 8, 2022. On June 13, private counsel, who had not formally entered an appearance on Wishom's behalf, requested a short continuance to confer with Wishom until June 21.[2] During a June 21 hearing, the circuit court found Wishom indigent and appointed him a public defender. At the hearing, the State notified the court that Wishom's charged offenses were required to be disposed by October 23, 2022, to comply with the 180-day IAD deadline. The State also notified the court it filed a motion to compel Wishom to provide a biological sample for DNA testing and asked the court to set a date for a hearing on the motion. In response, the court
scheduled a hearing on the State's motion and set Wishom's case for trial on October 17, 2022.
On June 23, 2022, a public defender appeared on Wishom's behalf, and Wishom, thereafter, filed objections to the State's motion to compel. In the objections, Wishom noted that October 11, 2022, not October 23, was the appropriate IAD deadline. After a hearing on the State's motion to compel, the court entered an order sustaining the motion to compel and rescheduled Wishom's trial for October 11.
On October 11, 2022-within the 180-day period after the State and circuit court received Wishom's IAD request to dispose of the pending charges-both the State and Wishom appeared in circuit court ready for trial. Despite two other non-IAD jury trials commencing on that date in other divisions of the circuit court, the court failed to secure a jury panel and continued the case on its own accord without request from either Wishom or the State. On October 14, Wishom filed a motion to dismiss the charges on the grounds the court failed to dispose of the charged offenses within the required IAD timeframe.
The circuit court held a hearing on October 18, 2022, regarding Wishom's motion to dismiss. At the hearing, and in response to Wishom's motion to dismiss, the State conceded Wishom "did do everything that he was supposed to do" to comply with the IAD and the State "showed up prepared for trial within the 180 day period." The State, nevertheless, asked the court to find good cause for continuing the October 11 trial setting based on the court's inability to secure a jury panel. The court agreed with the State's argument and overruled Wishom's motion to dismiss. In so doing, the court faulted Wishom for not requesting to be put on the circuit court's "priority list" for the October 11
trial setting to ensure the court secured a jury panel from the summoned jury pool and entered an order finding "good cause for the continuance as there was not a jury panel available."[3] The court and parties agreed to set the case for trial on October 31, 2022, with a backup date of January 30, 2023.
Wishom appeared October 31, 2022 in the circuit court again ready for trial, but the court again continued the case on its own accord to January 30, 2023. On January 27, 2023, Wishom sought a writ of prohibition from this Court prohibiting the circuit court from taking any further action in his pending criminal matter other than entering an order dismissing the charges against him. This Court issued a preliminary writ directing the circuit court to show cause why a permanent writ should not be entered.
Standard of Review
This Court has jurisdiction to issue original remedial writs pursuant to article V, section 4.1 of the Missouri Constitution. The writ of prohibition is an "extraordinary remedy" and is appropriate:
(1) to prevent the usurpation of judicial power when a lower court lacks authority or jurisdiction; (2) to remedy an excess of authority, jurisdiction or abuse of discretion where the lower court lacks the power to act as intended; or (3) where a party may suffer irreparable harm if relief is not granted.
State ex rel. T.J. v. Cundiff, 632 S.W.3d 353, 355 (Mo. banc 2021) (internal quotation omitted). Courts have utilized this extraordinary remedy and issued remedial writs to
prevent a circuit court from proceeding in a case when the 180-day deadline to dispose of pending charges has expired in violation of the IAD. See, e.g., State ex rel. Suitor v. Stremel, 968 S.W.2d 221, 225 (Mo. App. 1998); State ex rel. Saxton v. Moore, 598 S.W.2d 586, 592-93 (Mo. App. 1980).
Analysis
The Interstate Agreement on Detainers
This case concerns the IAD's applicability to the disposition of the state charges pending against Wishom resulting in the detainer lodged with the federal penitentiary where he was serving a federal sentence. A detainer is "a request filed by a criminal justice agency with the institution in which a prisoner is incarcerated, asking the institution either to hold the prisoner for the agency or to notify the agency when release of the prisoner is imminent." Farish v. Mo. Dep't of Corr., 416 S.W.3d 793, 797 (Mo. banc 2013) (emphasis omitted) (quoting Carchman v. Nash, 473 U.S. 716, 719 (1985)). The harmful effect of detainers has been "well documented." State ex rel. Kemp v. Hodge, 629 S.W.2d 353, 355 (Mo. banc 1982). It is not uncommon for prison authorities to "accord[] detainers considerable weight in making decisions" regarding prisoner treatment. United States v. Ford, 550 F.2d 732, 737-38 (2d Cir. 1977). Historically, a "prisoner was often deprived of the ability to take advantage of many of the prison's programs aimed at rehabilitation, merely because there was a detainer lodged against him." United States v. Mauro, 436 U.S. 340, 359 (1978). An unresolved detainer, moreover, leaves the offender believing there is "little hope for his release[,]" Kemp, 629 S.W.2d at 355 (quoting E. Dauber, Reforming the Detainer System: A Case Study, 7 Crim. L. Bull. 669, 671 (1971)), and,
consequently, with "little inclination toward self-improvement." Id. (quoting Smith v. Hooey, 393 U.S. 374, 379 (1969)). As a result, unresolved detainers risk defeating the objective of the correctional system to rehabilitate the offender and reduce recidivism. See id. (quoting Dauber, supra at 671).
To combat the problems posed by unresolved detainers, the federal government and almost all states -including Missouri - have entered into the IAD. See 5 Wayne R. LaFave et. al., Crim. Proc. § 18.4(c) (4th ed. 2022); Mauro, 436 U.S. at 343-44; Kemp, 629 S.W.2d at 355. Missouri has codified the IAD in section 217.490.[4] The IAD applies to criminal charges pending against a prisoner while the prisoner is incarcerated in another...
To continue reading
Request your trial