State v. James

• Decision Date: 13 March 2018
• Docket Number: WD 80212
• Citation: 552 S.W.3d 590
• Parties: STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. David Duane JAMES, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

552 S.W.3d 590

STATE of Missouri, Respondent,

v.David Duane JAMES, Appellant.

WD 80212

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

OPINION FILED: March 13, 2018

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied May 1, 2018

Application for Transfer to Supreme Court Denied August 21, 2018

Joshua D. Hawley, Attorney General, and Daniel N. McPherson, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, Attorneys for Respondent.

Jedd C. Schneider, Assistant Public Defender, Columbia, MO, Attorney for Appellant.

Before Division IV: Mark D. Pfeiffer, Chief Judge, and Victor C. Howard and Cynthia L. Martin, Judges

Mark D. Pfeiffer, Chief Judge

Mr. David D. James ("James") appeals from the Judgment of the Circuit Court of Gentry County, Missouri ("trial court"), finding him guilty, following a bench trial, of the class C felony of driving while intoxicated ("DWI"). James asserts that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss under the Uniform Mandatory Disposition of Detainers Law ("UMDDL"). We reverse the trial court's judgment, order that the judgment be vacated, and remand the cause to the trial court with directions to dismiss the information with prejudice.

Facts and Procedural History¹

On July 28, 2014, the State filed an information in case number 14GE–CR00076, charging James with one count of the class B misdemeanor of DWI, § 577.010,² and one count of the misdemeanor of driving while license was revoked. A probable cause statement dated July 12, 2014, by Gentry County Sheriff's Deputy Dustin Smith ("Deputy Smith") accompanied that information and alleged facts supporting Deputy Smith's arrest of James for DWI on July 11, 2014. James was arraigned on August 20, 2014, and entered a plea of not guilty.

A case review hearing was scheduled for September 17, 2014. James failed to appear at the scheduled hearing, and the trial court issued an arrest warrant on that date. On September 22, 2014, the trial court received from the Western Reception, Diagnostic and Correctional Center in St. Joseph, Missouri, a Verification of Incarceration which stated that James was received at the Missouri Department of Corrections ("DOC") on August 28, 2014, and had a mandatory release date of May 4, 2016, unless placed on probation or parole prior to that time.

On September 23, 2014, while James was incarcerated in the DOC, the Gentry County Sheriff's Department placed a detainer against James in case number 14GE–CR00076. On September 25, 2014, James signed a DOC Notice of Detainer, acknowledging that the detainer had been explained to him. The Notice confirmed that the DOC had received a detainer charging James with DWI and driving while revoked in case number 14GE–CR00076 from the Sheriff of Gentry County, the warrant of detention having been issued from the Gentry County Circuit Court.

On the same date, James signed an Offender's Request for Disposition of Indictment, Informations or Complaints in case number 14GE–CR00076, directed to the Gentry County prosecuting attorney. The Certification of Commitment portion of the Request directed to the Gentry County Circuit Court indicated that James had been received by the DOC on August 28, 2014, for a DWI conviction from Nodaway County, where he was serving a four-year sentence beginning on May 5, 2012, with a final discharge date of May 4, 2016. James's request for disposition of detainers in case number 14GE–CR00076 was received by the Clerk of the Gentry County Circuit Court on October 2, 2014.

The docket sheets do not reflect any further action until October 30, 2015, when the trial court scheduled a case review hearing for November 4, 2015. At the November 4 hearing, the State entered a nolle prosequi³ and dismissed the charges in case number 14GE–CR00076. On the same day, the State filed a felony complaint under a new case number, 15GE–CR00108, charging James as an aggravated offender with the class C felony of DWI, § 577.010. The complaint alleged the same facts as alleged in the prior information charging misdemeanor DWI. Deputy Smith's July 12, 2014 probable cause statement was also filed in this subsequent proceeding.

On December 4, 2015, the State amended its felony information in case number 15GE–CR00108–01, charging James as an aggravated offender with one count of the class C felony of DWI and one count of the unclassified misdemeanor of driving while license was revoked. On December 14, 2015, James's counsel filed a motion to dismiss the charges pursuant to section 217.460 (alleged UMDDL violation), which was overruled by the trial court on February 4, 2016.

On July 11, 2016, the State filed an amended felony information charging James as an aggravated and prior offender with one count of the class C felony of DWI, § 577.010, and one count of the misdemeanor of driving without a valid license. James filed a waiver of right to a jury trial on July 21, 2016. The trial court rescheduled the case for a bench trial on August 5, 2016. James failed to appear for trial, and the trial court issued a capias warrant.

On August 8, the trial court received a telephone call from the Gentry County Sheriff, who expressed concern for James's health. The trial court ordered that James be furloughed for the purpose of obtaining medical care until 9:00 a.m. on September 1, 2016, at which time he was to surrender himself to the custody of the Gentry County Sheriff. Thereafter, the trial court extended the medical furlough to 6:00 p.m. on September 7, 2016. The day after the furlough expired, the trial court scheduled trial for September 15, 2016.

At trial, James renewed his motion to dismiss, which the trial court again overruled. On November 10, 2016, the trial court entered its judgment, finding James guilty of DWI but not guilty of driving without a valid license. The trial court sentenced James to seven years in the DOC with suspended execution of sentence.

James timely appealed.

Standard of Review

"Whether a criminal case should be dismissed based on the UMDDL is a question of law which this court reviews de novo ." State v. Brown , 377 S.W.3d 619, 621 (Mo. App. W.D. 2012). Whether a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial was violated is also a question of law, which we review de novo . State v. Sisco , 458 S.W.3d 304, 312–13 (Mo. banc 2015).

Analysis

In James's sole point on appeal, he asserts that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss in violation of his constitutional rights to due process and to a speedy trial, because the trial court exceeded its authority in violation of the UMDDL⁴ and the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. James points out that 399 days⁵ after he filed his request for disposition of detainer, without the matter having been set for trial, the State filed a nolle prosequi in case number 14GE–CR00076 and simultaneously refiled a felony information on identical facts in case number 15GE–CR00108, with ten months elapsing after the filing of the new case before the DWI charge⁶ was ultimately tried.

Statutory Right to Speedy Trial under UMDDL

"The UMDDL provides for the prompt disposition of detainers based on untried state charges pending against a prisoner held within the state's correctional system." State v. Pugh , 357 S.W.3d 310, 313 (Mo. App. W.D. 2012) (internal quotation omitted). The term "detainer" is not statutorily defined, but courts have defined it as " ‘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.’ " Id. (quoting Carchman v. Nash , 473 U.S. 716, 719, 105 S.Ct. 3401, 87 L.Ed.2d 516 (1985) ). "The purpose of a detainer is to put prison officials on notice that the inmate is wanted to face pending charges in another jurisdiction upon the inmate's release from prison." Id.

Under section 217.450.1 of the UMDDL, a prisoner confined in a DOC facility may request a final disposition of any untried indictment, information, or complaint pending in the state "on the basis of which a law enforcement agency, prosecuting attorney's office, or circuit attorney's office has delivered a certified copy of a warrant and has requested that a detainer be lodged against him with the facility where the offender is confined." Section 217.450.1 further provides that the request "shall be in writing addressed to the court in which the indictment, information or complaint is pending and to the prosecuting attorney charged with the duty of prosecuting it, and shall set forth the place of imprisonment." The prisoner's request is also to be delivered to the "director,"⁷ who must make certain certifications, including the offender's term of commitment, time served, and time remaining to be served, and send copies of the request and certificate by registered mail to the court and prosecuting attorney. § 217.455.

Within 180 days after the court and prosecuting attorney receive the request and certificate, pursuant to sections 217.450 and 217.455, "or within such additional necessary or reasonable time as the court may grant, for good cause shown in open court, the offender or his counsel being present, the indictment, information or complaint shall be brought to trial." § 217.460. If the indictment, information, or complaint is not brought to trial within the 180–day period, "and if the court finds that the offender's constitutional right to a speedy trial has been denied, no court of this state shall have jurisdiction of such indictment, information or complaint, nor shall the untried indictment, information or complaint be of any further force or effect; and the court shall issue an order dismissing the same with prejudice."⁸ Id.

The statutory protections of the inmate's right to a speedy trial by allowing dismissal of any charges not prosecuted within 180 days of the request for disposition are triggered by the lodging of the detainer. Brown , 377...