, and sentence of ten years of imprisonment as a prior and persistent offender, to be served consecutively to his existing sentences.1 Branstetter's only
claim on appeal is that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss based on the fact he was not brought to trial on the charge within 180 days, pursuant to the requirements of the Uniform Mandatory Disposition of Detainers Law ("UMDDL"),
sections 217.450-217.485
.2 He asserts that due to the State's failure to timely try him, the trial court lost subject matter jurisdiction. The facts of this case bring into focus the potential effects of a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum on the law of detainers in Missouri.
The record on appeal reveals the following timeline:
June Prosecuting attorney of Miller County ("prosecutor")
20, files complaint and request for issuance of an arrest
2000 warrant on the challenged felony stealing charge in
the Circuit Court of Miller County ("court"); warrant
issued
July Arrest warrant served on the defendant
14
2000
July Defendant delivered to the Missouri Department of
19, Corrections ("DOC") to begin serving a sentence for
2000 an unrelated crime
August Defendant files a pro se "Demand for Speedy Trial
21, and Final Disposition of Detainers Pursuant to Art. I
2000 Section 18(A) of the Missouri Constitution and RSMo
217.450" with the court and the prosecutor.
August Prosecutor files application for a writ of habeas
24, corpus ad prosequendum; writ granted and issued to
2000 the Miller County Sheriff ("Sheriff").
August Prosecutor files application for a second writ of
30, habeas corpus ad prosequendum; writ granted and
2000 issued to the Sheriff. Preliminary hearing set for
September 27, 2000.
September Defendant appears in court and waives his right to a
27, preliminary hearing. Case bound over for arraignment
2000 on October 16, 2000.
October Prosecutor files application for a third writ of habeas
10, corpus ad prosequendum; writ subsequently granted
2000 and issued to the Sheriff on October 12, 2000.
October Prosecutor files application for a fourth writ of habeas
25, corpus ad prosequendum; writ subsequently granted
2000 and issued to the Sheriff on October 26, 2000.
November Case called for arraignment. Defendant appears
20, without an attorney and court enters a not guilty plea
2000 on his behalf. Defendant requests and is granted the
right to be represented by a public defender; court
orders case set for trial "BEFORE 2/16/01."3
December Case set for jury trial January 22-26, 2001.
7,
2001
January Defense counsel files motion for continuance.
5,
2001
January Prosecutor files application for a fifth writ of habeas
23, corpus ad prosequendum; writ granted and issued to
2001 the Sheriff; case called; motion to withdraw defense
counsel's January 5, 2001 motion for continuance
filed; defendant's motion to remand to Associate
Division for preliminary hearing sustained without
objection by the State because "the Public Defender
failed to get conflict counsel for Def. at P.H."
January Preliminary hearing held; court found probable cause;
24, case bound over for arraignment on February 13,
2001 2001.
February DOC responds to defendant's written request for
6, information on the date of any pending holds or
2001 detainers that had been lodged against him; tells
defendant no detainers have been filed.
February DOC responds to defendant's second written request
8, for information on pending holds or detainers; tells
2001 defendant no detainers have been filed but indicates
it is aware he has been released to the Miller County
Sheriff on multiple writs of habeas corpus ad
prosequendum in the untried felony stealing matter.
February Court sua sponte binds defendant over for
20, arraignment in circuit court on March 19, 2001.
2001
March State fails to "writ the defendant in" for arraignment;
19, arraignment reset for April 16, 2001.
2001
March Prosecutor files application for a sixth writ of habeas
21, corpus ad prosequendum; writ subsequently granted
2001 and issued to the Sheriff on April 4, 2001.
April Prosecutor files application for a seventh writ of
13, habeas corpus ad prosequendum; writ granted and
2001 issued to the Sheriff.
April Defendant arraigned, enters a not guilty plea; case
16, ordered set for a jury trial.
2001
May Case set for jury trial on January 7-11, 2002.
14,
2001
June Defendant files a verified pro se "Motion To Dismiss
21, With Prejudice" based on his August 21, 2000
2001 demand for final disposition of detainers under the
UMDDL.
June Motion to dismiss overruled without a hearing.
28,
2001
July Defendant files a pro se "Motion for Reconsideration
19, of Judgment Entered June 28, 2001, Denying Motion
2001 to Dismiss With Prejudice."
October Defendant files a pro se "Motion for Hearing" on his
12, July 19, 2001 motion for reconsideration.
2001
November Court does not grant a hearing but determines that
19, the case will "proceed to trial."
2001
November Defendant files a pro se "Motion to Dismiss With
28, Prejudice on Constitutional Grounds."
2001
December Prosecutor files application for an eighth writ of
31, habeas corpus ad prosequendum; court took no
2001 action on this application.
January Prosecutor files renewed application for an eighth writ
2, of habeas corpus ad prosequendum; writ granted and
2002 issued to the Miller County sheriff.
January Bench trial; court finds defendant guilty of felony
9, stealing.
2002
Immediately prior to trial, the court took up Branstetter's motion to dismiss based upon the State's failure to try the case within the 180-day period specified by the UMDDL. Branstetter's offer of proof on the issue of the existence of a detainer consisted of the testimony of Lilly Adams, the Corrections Records Officer at Algoa Correctional Center. She said Branstetter's prison file did not indicate the existence of any detainers placed on him by Miller County, and that it contained no correspondence whatsoever from any Miller County judge, prosecuting attorney, or law enforcement officer requesting that a detainer or hold be lodged against him, or asking that Miller County be advised as to when he was going to be released. She also testified that sometime before February 6, 2001, Branstetter submitted a written request for the date of "the hold or whatever you have on me from Miller County." Her office's response, which was transmitted to him on February 6, 2001, was that there was no detainer from Miller County on record. On February 8, 2001, Adams' office received another request from Branstetter for the same information on pending holds or detainers. The response from Adams' office was "You do not have a hold or a detainer, however you've been going out on writs to Miller County." Adams acknowledged that Branstetter's file contained eight writs of habeas corpus ad prosequendum served by the Miller County sheriff and explained that, after each such court appearance, a DOC employee called the circuit clerk' s office to learn the updated disposition of the case. Adams also testified that after Branstetter's court appearance on April 16, 2001, DOC was informed by the Miller County circuit clerk via telephone that his case had been bound over for trial. Asked why Branstetter was told he had no detainers, Adams explained that "I would need correspondence from the county to place a detainer, a written request or a fax, certified warrant requesting a detainer be placed, and that [had] not been done." Later, she noted: "We just have all the writs of prosequendum from the counties in the file, but I don't have any correspondence letter from the sheriff or court to place a detainer." Finally, Adams stated that although her office would not normally notify Miller County if Branstetter was about to be paroled, it was routine office procedure to run warrant checks on prisoners whose release was...
