State v. Williams
| Decision Date | 25 November 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. WD 61937.,WD 61937. |
| Citation | 120 S.W.3d 294 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Charles E. WILLIAMS, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Andrea Mazza Follett, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.
Rosalynn Koch, Assistant Public Defender, Columbia, MO, for Appellant.
Before BRECKENRIDGE, P.J., and EDWIN H. SMITH and HOWARD, JJ.
Charles E. Williams appeals from the trial court's denial of his motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Williams argues the trial court was without jurisdiction on July 29, 2002, to proceed in a bench trial on the charge of possession of a controlled substance in or about the premises of a correction center lodged against him, because more than 180 non-excludable days had passed from his mandatory disposition of detainers request. Williams further alleges that the State's delay in bringing him to trial violated his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial. We affirm.
On March 29, 2000, Dennis Allen, an employee at the Moberly Correctional Center, witnessed Williams and another inmate engage in an exchange. When Allen approached the inmates, Williams turned away from him and appeared to put something in his mouth. After searching Williams' mouth, however, Allen found nothing. Subsequently, Allen and Corrections Officer Randall Watts conducted a strip search of Williams and the other inmate. During the search, Officer Watts found a bag containing a green leafy substance in Williams' sock. The Moberly Correctional Center and the Missouri Highway Patrol determined the substance was marijuana.
The following is a timeline of events relevant to the appeal:
Date Event
12/12/01 Criminal complaint filed against Williams
12/20/01 Records Officer with the Crossroads Correctional Facility in Cameron, Missouri
writes letter to notify the Randolph County Sheriff's Department that the prison
would place a detainer on Williams
1/14/02 Copy of Williams' Motion for Speedy Trial and Final Disposition of Detainers is
filed with the Randolph County Circuit Court
1/15/02 Williams refuses to fill out an application for Public Defender services. Court sets
case for preliminary hearing on March 18, 2002
1/16/02 Williams appears in court, is arraigned, and sent to the Public Defender.
3/18/02 Preliminary hearing held; Williams bound over on Count II only.
3/19/02 Criminal Information filed.
3/26/02 Williams enters Plea of Not Guilty.
4/01/02 Williams files Motion for Change of Venue.
4/09/02 Motion for Change of Venue heard with Williams, his counsel, and the assistant
prosecutor present. Court grants change of venue to Howard County. Jury trial
ordered for July 29, 2002.1
4/11/02 Change of Venue received by Howard County.
7/12/02 Williams waives his right to jury trial. Judge questions Williams in the presence
of his attorney regarding Williams' waiver. Judge reminds Williams of the bench
trial scheduled for July 29, 2002.2
7/29/02 Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction heard and overruled; bench trial held.
9/16/02 Williams sentenced to a term of two years' imprisonment.
On July 29, 2002, the date of Williams' bench trial, his attorney made a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Defense counsel announced that he had "discovered that [Williams] filed a speedy trial request on January 14th, 2002." In response, the State said it did not have anything to indicate that it had received a request for a final disposition of detainers from Williams. Defense counsel replied that he knew the applicable statute required notice to be sent to the prosecutor and that Williams "maintains that he sent it." Williams presented no evidence, however, to demonstrate that he sent notice to the prosecutor or that the prosecutor had notice of the 180-day request.
The court noted that a copy of Williams' request for a speedy trial and disposition of detainers had been filed with the court on January 14, 2002. The court remarked on Williams' refusal to complete a public defender application on January 15, 2002. The court determined that the delay caused by Williams' refusal to sign the public defender form and his motion for a change of venue were to be charged against Williams. After charging the delays against Williams, the court stated, "And therefore, with that being said, the 180 days hasn't run, with that time charged to him." The court denied Williams' motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and proceeded with the bench trial.
Williams presented no witnesses or evidence. The court found him guilty of possession of a controlled substance in or about the premises of a correction center.
On September 16, 2002, the court sentenced Williams to a term of two years' imprisonment, to be served consecutive to any term that Williams was serving at the time. This appeal followed. The sufficiency of the evidence is not at issue.
Williams argues the trial court erred in overruling his motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. He alleges that the court was without jurisdiction to proceed in his bench trial because, at the time of trial, more than 180 non-excludable days had passed from the filing of his mandatory disposition of detainers request. Williams further alleges that the State's delay in bringing him to trial violated his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial.
Pursuant to section 217.450,3 a prisoner may request final disposition of any untried indictment, information, or complaint pending against him in the state. Woody v. State, 904 S.W.2d 467, 469 (Mo. App. E.D.1995). Section 217.450.1 provides, "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 is to deliver the request described in section 217.450.1 to the Director of the Division of Adult Institutions (the "Director"). The Director, under section 217.455, must make specific certifications and send copies of the request and certificate by registered or certified mail to the court and the prosecuting attorney to whom the prisoner addressed the request. Woody, 904 S.W.2d at 469. If the prisoner properly invokes the Uniform Mandatory Disposition of Detainers Law ("UMDDL"), §§ 217.450-.485, he must be brought to trial within 180 days after receipt of the request and certificate pursuant to section 217.450 and section 217.455 by the court and the prosecuting attorney or within such additional necessary or reasonable time as the court may grant. § 217.460. If the prisoner is not brought to trial within the 180-day period, no court shall have jurisdiction to hear the case and shall issue an order dismissing the same with prejudice. § 217.460.
The 180-day period of section 217.460 does not begin to run until both the prosecutor and the court receive the defendant's request for disposition and the Director's certificate. Meyer v. State, 854 S.W.2d 69, 71 (Mo.App. E.D.1993). The burden of proving if and when the prosecuting attorney received the defendant's request for disposition is on the defendant. Woody, 904 S.W.2d at 470. Williams offered no proof that he ever sent a request to the prosecutor or that the prosecutor received such a request. He merely maintained that he did send the request to the prosecutor. The certificate attached to the court's copy of the request certifies that Williams mailed the request to the court on January 10, 2002, but there is no mention of the prosecuting attorney. The prosecutor told the judge that the State had no record of receiving such a request from Williams.
In State v. Laramore, 965 S.W.2d 847 (Mo.App. E.D.1998), the court addressed the defendant's compliance with the certification requirements of section 217.455. In that case, the copy of the request for disposition available in the record contained the information required by section 217.455. The court, therefore, found that the Director had received the defendant's request. Id. at 850. The record demonstrated that the trial court received the request and certificate. The copy of the certificate filed with the court contained a typed message along the bottom providing that the white copy of the certificate was to be distributed to the prosecuting attorney. Id. Because the record demonstrated that the Director completed the certificate of the defendant's request and sent the completed request to the court, the court found it was reasonable to assume that the Director also mailed the proper copy of the certificate to the prosecuting attorney. Id. The court noted that nothing in the record indicated that the prosecuting attorney did not receive the defendant's certificate. Id.
We can distinguish Laramore on its facts. In Laramore, the copy of the section 217.455 certification received by the court contained a statement concerning the delivery of the certificate to the prosecuting attorney. Furthermore, nothing in the record indicated that the prosecuting attorney had not received the certificate. In the present case, we have no such indicia of delivery of the request to the prosecutor. And the record reflects that the State said it never received Williams' request for disposition.4
In order to receive the benefit and protection of the UMDDL, a defendant must show a good faith effort to invoke the UMDDL and must substantially comply with its procedural requirements. Dillard v. State, 931 S.W.2d 157, 164 (Mo.App. W.D.1996). A fundamental procedural requirement of section 217.450.1 is a written demand for disposition addressed to the court and the prosecuting attorney. Id. at 164-65 (emphasis added). Williams is not entitled to the protection of the UMDDL because he did not demonstrate that he...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Vickers
...time in custody was due to either a parole violation on an unrelated case or his federal charge and conviction. State v. Williams , 120 S.W.3d 294, 300 (Mo. App. W.D. 2003) ("Williams was already incarcerated on an unrelated incident at the time of the possession charge, so oppressiveness o......
-
Rhoades v. Dormire
...requirements for making such a request, he must be brought to trial within 180 days of the receipt of the request. State v. Williams, 120 S.W.3d 294, 298 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003) (citing § 217.460 (2000)). If the prisoner is not brought to trial within the 180-day period, "no court shall have ju......
-
State v. Buchli
...went to trial on July 15, 2002. This delay was less than six months. It was, therefore, not presumptively prejudicial. State v. Williams, 120 S.W.3d 294, 300 (Mo.App.2003). "Until there is some delay that is presumptively prejudicial, we need not inquire into the other three factors used to......
-
State v. Green
...to begin to protect his interests. Id. The filing of a criminal complaint does not make a defendant an “accused.”State v. Williams, 120 S.W.3d 294, 299 (Mo.App. W.D.2003).Standard of Review Although Defendant's brief includes a section entitled “Standard of Review,” it does not identify a p......