State v. Williams
| Decision Date | 19 December 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. S-97-029,S-97-029 |
| Parties | STATE of Nebraska, Appellee, v. Shannon E. WILLIAMS, Appellant. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Extradition and Detainer: Pretrial Procedure: Motions to Dismiss. In ruling on a motion to dismiss with prejudice based on alleged violations of the interstate Agreement on Detainers, Neb.Rev.Stat. § 29-759 (Reissue 1995), it is proper for the trial court to hold a pretrial evidentiary hearing to determine whether a detainer was filed against the defendant and, if a detainer was filed, to determine whether the provisions of the agreement were violated.
2. Extradition and Detainer: Pretrial Procedure: Appeal and Error. When a trial court makes pretrial factual determinations regarding the application of provisions of the interstate Agreement on Detainers, its findings of fact will not be disturbed on appeal unless clearly wrong.
3. Extradition and Detainer. The interstate Agreement on Detainers provides the procedure whereby persons who are imprisoned in one state or by the United States, and who are also charged with crimes in another state or by the United States, can be tried expeditiously for the pending charges while they are serving their current sentences, in order to avoid prolonged interference with rehabilitation programs.
4. Federal Acts: Extradition and Detainer: Courts. Because the interstate Agreement on Detainers is a congressionally sanctioned interstate compact, it is a federal law subject to federal construction, and, thus, U.S. Supreme Court interpretations of the Agreement on Detainers are binding on state courts.
5. Extradition and Detainer: Time. Articles IV and V of the interstate Agreement on Detainers provide the procedures by which the authorities in the state where the charges are pending, the receiving state, may initiate the process whereby a prisoner is transferred to the receiving state for trial on the pending charges. The trial on the pending charges must be commenced within 120 days from the date of the prisoner's arrival in the receiving state; however, for good cause shown, a court is authorized to grant any necessary or reasonable continuance. If the trial is not commenced within 120 days, absent a continuance, the court is 6. Jurisdiction: Appeal and Error. It is the duty of an appellate court to determine whether it has jurisdiction over the matter before it.
required to enter an order dismissing the charges with prejudice.
7. Extradition and Detainer: Motions to Dismiss: Time: Final Orders. A ruling denying a motion to dismiss with prejudice for failure to bring an individual to trial within 120 days from the date of his arrival in the receiving state pursuant to the interstate Agreement on Detainers is a final, appealable order.
8. Extradition and Detainer: Speedy Trial. The speedy trial provisions of the interstate Agreement on Detainers are triggered only when a detainer is filed with the state where an individual is a prisoner by the state having untried charges pending against the individual.
9. Extradition and Detainer: Words and Phrases. A detainer is a notification filed with the institution in which an individual is serving a sentence, advising the prisoner that he is wanted to face criminal charges pending in another jurisdiction. More specifically, 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 after his release or to notify the agency when release of the prisoner is imminent.
10. Extradition and Detainer: Habeas Corpus: Words and Phrases. A state writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum, seeking the immediate delivery of a prisoner for trial on criminal charges, does not constitute a detainer within the meaning of the interstate Agreement on Detainers.
11. Habeas Corpus: Words and Phrases. A writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum is a common-law writ issued by a court, ordering the immediate removal of a prisoner from incarceration so that he can be brought to another jurisdiction to stand trial on charges for crimes committed within that jurisdiction.
12. Habeas Corpus. In Nebraska, writs of habeas corpus ad prosequendum have been and continue to be a traditional way of securing the presence of a prisoner located in another jurisdiction.
13. Habeas Corpus. Federal prisons are authorized to consider a request made on behalf of a state or local court that an inmate be transferred to the physical custody of state or local agents pursuant to a state writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum.
14. Extradition and Detainer. Mere notice of pending criminal charges is insufficient to invoke the provisions of the interstate Agreement on Detainers.
15. Records: Appeal and Error. It is incumbent upon the party appealing to present a record which supports the errors assigned; absent such a record, the decision of the lower court is to be affirmed.
Steven J. Lefler and Frederick D. Franklin, of Lefler & Franklin Law Office, Omaha, for appellant.
Robert Francis Cryne, Deputy Douglas County Attorney, Omaha, for appellee.
On April 11, 1994, the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska sentenced Shannon E. Williams to 168 months in the U.S. penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kansas, for conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to distribute cocaine base. On December 12, 1995, while Williams was serving his sentence, a sealed arrest warrant was issued in Nebraska for his arrest. Williams was transferred from the federal penitentiary to Nebraska on January 12, 1996. On February 1, an information was filed in Douglas County District Court, charging Williams with first degree murder, use of a firearm to commit a felony, possession of a firearm by a felon, and conspiracy to commit first degree murder. On May 29, Williams filed a motion to dismiss with prejudice, alleging that the State had failed to bring him to trial within 120 days from the date of his arrival in Nebraska, pursuant to the interstate Agreement
on Detainers (Agreement), Neb.Rev.Stat. § 29-759 (Reissue 1995). Following an evidentiary hearing on the matter, the district court on December 9 overruled the motion, finding that Williams was transferred to Nebraska pursuant to a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum, rather than a detainer, and that, as a consequence, the 120-day speedy trial provision of the Agreement was inapplicable. Despite this conclusion, the district court further found that Williams' right to a speedy trial under the Agreement had not been violated. Because we determine that the district court was not clearly wrong when it concluded that a detainer was never filed with the federal prison and that only a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum was issued to secure Williams' presence in Nebraska, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
On December 12, 1995, while Williams was serving a 168-month sentence in the U.S. penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kansas, a sealed arrest warrant was issued in the State of Nebraska. To initiate the transfer of Williams to Nebraska from the federal penitentiary, the State, on December 29, completed documents entitled "Evidence of Agents' Authority to Act for Receiving State" and "Prosecutor's Certification." The State sent the documents by facsimile transmission on January 2, 1996, to Shari McKee, the inmate systems supervisor at the federal penitentiary. Within the body of the "Evidence of Agents' Authority to Act for Receiving State," it was noted that three particular officers of the Omaha Police Division would take Williams into custody at the federal penitentiary on or between January 5 and 8, 1996, to appear as a defendant in a trial in Nebraska, and a reference was made to article V(b) of the Agreement.
On January 3, 1996, the Douglas County District Court issued a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum, which was subsequently forwarded to the penitentiary. Two days later, Joe White, the inmate systems manager at the federal penitentiary, wrote a memorandum to the warden requesting permission to release Williams to Nebraska on a state writ ad testificandum to appear as a defendant in a trial. The warden approved the release, and White, on January 11, completed a "Release Authorization" form for the release of Williams on January 12, pursuant to a state writ. The box on this form marked "Detainer" was specifically checked "No." On January 12, an officer from the Omaha Police Division signed the "Release Authorization," took custody of Williams, and transferred him to Nebraska. The State filed an information in Douglas County District Court on February 1, charging Williams with first degree murder, use of a firearm to commit a felony, possession of a firearm by a felon, and conspiracy to commit first degree murder.
On May 29, 1996, Williams filed a motion to dismiss with prejudice, alleging that the State had failed to bring him to trial within 120 days from the date of his arrival on January 12 in Nebraska, pursuant to the Agreement. At the evidentiary hearing on the matter, McKee, the inmate systems supervisor, testified that Williams was transferred to Nebraska pursuant to a state writ, rather than a detainer. McKee further testified that she had a telephone conversation with the Deputy Douglas County Attorney, who was acting on behalf of the State, about the procedures that needed to be followed to obtain a prisoner on a state writ, which included completing the document entitled "Evidence of Agents' Authority to Act for Receiving State." McKee stated that federal prison officials require the document to inform the prison of the names of the officers who would be transferring the prisoner. The Deputy Douglas County Attorney also testified at the hearing that he did not file a detainer...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shearer v. Leuenberger
...the errors assigned; absent such a record, as a general rule, the decision of the lower court is to be affirmed. State v. Williams, 253 Neb. 619, 573 N.W.2d 106 (1997); Allphin v. Ward, 253 Neb. 302, 570 N.W.2d 360 (1997). Because the record does not reveal how the trial court ruled on the ......
-
State v. Quintana
...absent such a record, as a general rule, the decision of the lower court as to those errors is to be affirmed. State v. Williams, 253 Neb. 619, 573 N.W.2d 106 (1997); State v. Price, 252 Neb. 365, 562 N.W.2d 340 The record does not establish that Quintana exhausted his peremptory challenges......
-
In re Ryan, No. 10-04-00128-CR (TX 10/20/2004)
...against the defendant and, if a detainer was filed, to determine whether the provisions of the Agreement were violated. State v. Williams, 573 N.W.2d 106, 110 (Neb. 1997). 6. The IADA provides in Article The appropriate officer of the jurisdiction in which an untried indictment, information......
-
State v. Steele
...they are serving their current sentences, in order to avoid prolonged interference with rehabilitation programs. State v. Williams, 253 Neb. 619, 624, 573 N.W.2d 106, 110 (1997), citing § 29-759, article I. See, also, United States v. Mauro, 436 U.S. 340, 98 S.Ct. 1834, 56 L.Ed.2d 329 (1978......
-
What's So Special About Special Proceedings? Making Sense of Nebraska's Final Order Statute
...are final, appealable orders. See State v. Kula, 254 Neb. 962, 965-66, 579 N.W.2d 541, 545 (1998) (Sixth Amendment); State v. Williams, 253 Neb. 619, 625-26, 573 N.W.2d 106, 111 (1997) (Interstate Agreement on Detainers). 276. Jacques, 253 Neb. at 254, 570 N.W.2d at 336. The court also said......