Stephenson v. State
Decision Date | 01 December 2000 |
Parties | Marcel STEPHENSON v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Marcel Stephenson, appellant, pro se.
Andrew W. Redd, general counsel, and Albert Sim Butler, asst. general counsel, Department of Corrections.
In December 1999, the appellant, Marcel Stephenson, an inmate incarcerated at Holman Prison, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, contending that he is being denied the opportunity to earn a reduction in his custody status and to participate in work release and educational programs because two outstanding sentencing detainers from the State of Florida are pending against him. He requested that the circuit court order the Alabama Department of Corrections to remove the two sentencing detainers from his institutional file because there has not been a final disposition of the detainers as required by the Uniform Mandatory Disposition of Detainers Act ("UMDDA"),1 which is codified at §§ 15-9-80 through -88, Ala. Code 1975. After the State responded, the circuit court summarily dismissed the petition. This appeal followed.
The appellant alleges that, after he had been convicted of grand theft auto in Bay County, Florida, he was released from the county jail on the condition that he return for sentencing on November 6, 1985. However, he asserts that he was not able to appear for the sentencing hearing because he was arrested in Alabama on November 4, 1985. Subsequently, he was convicted in Montgomery County, Alabama, of first-degree arson and sentenced to serve a term of 21 years in prison.2 On June 12, 1986, Bay County, Florida, authorities issued a detainer against the appellant because he did not appear at the November 6, 1985, sentencing hearing. On February 12, 1990, Bay County, Florida, authorities issued a second detainer against the appellant based on his failure to appear at the November 6, 1985, sentencing hearing. On February 14, 1991, the appellant gave written notice of his place of imprisonment and requested a final disposition of the sentencing detainers pursuant to the UMDDA. The record indicates that, on March 20, 2000, the 1986 detainer was removed from the appellant's institutional file. However, the 1990 detainer is still pending against the appellant.
The appellant argues that his due process rights have been violated because the State of Florida did not effect a final disposition of the sentencing detainers within 180 days after he filed his request for final disposition as required by the UMDDA. "[A] writ of habeas corpus is the proper vehicle with which to attack interstate detainers." Speights v. State, 546 So.2d 1009, 1009 (Ala.Crim.App.1988).
Gillard v. State, 486 So.2d 1323, 1325 (Ala. Crim.App.1986). Article I of the UMDDA, which is codified at § 15-9-81, Ala.Code 1975, provides:
(Emphasis added.) Article III of the UMDDA, which is also codified at § 15-9-81, Ala.Code 1975, provides, in pertinent part:
Alabama has recognized that the UMDDA applies to detainers involving untried indictments, informations, or complaints pending against an inmate in another state for which there has not been a final disposition. See Morrow v. State, 675 So.2d 89 (Ala.Crim.App.1995)
; Gillard, supra. Although this court has held that the UMDDA does not apply to parole revocation hearings, probation revocation hearings, or intrastate detainers, see Morrow, supra, Downing v. State, 620 So.2d 983 (Ala.Crim.App.1993), and Kirk v. State, 536 So.2d 118 (Ala.Crim.App.1987), we have not determined whether the UMDDA is applicable to outstanding sentencing detainers from other states. However, in Bogue v. Fennelly, 705 So.2d 575 (Fla.Dist. Ct.App.1997), the Florida District Court of Appeal for the Fourth District addressed a similar factual situation and issue as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Painter v. State
...that have considered whether the IAD applies to sentencing detainers have concluded that it does not." See also Stephenson v. State, 801 So.2d 34, 40 (Ala.Crim.App.2000); People v. Castoe, 86 Cal.App.3d 484, 150 Cal. Rptr. 237, 239 (1978); Moody v. Corsentino, 843 P.2d 1355, 1372 (Colo.1993......
-
Pomales v. Hoke
...1147, 179 Ariz. 109, 112 (Ariz. App. Div. 1 1993); State v. Hill, 875 S.W.2d 278, 283 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993): Stephenson v. State, 801 So.2d 34, 40 (Ala. Crim. App. 2000); State v. Brown, 152 Ohio App.3d 8, 786 N.E.2d 492 (Ohio App. 7 Dist., 2003); State v. Owens, 910 N.E.2d 1059, 1065, 18......
-
State v. Bates
...crime in another jurisdiction but not yet sentenced, the majority of courts have concluded that it does not. See Stephenson v. State, 801 So.2d 34, 37-40 (Ala.Crim.Ct.App.2000); State v. Burkett, 179 Ariz. 109, 876 P.2d 1144, 1146-48 (Ariz.Ct.App.1993); People v. Mahan, 111 Cal.App.3d 28, 1......
-
State v. Brown, A12–1276.
...request for a final disposition is not a basis for dismissing a criminal case pursuant to the UMDDA or the IAD. See Stephenson v. State, 801 So.2d 34, 40 (Ala.Crim.App.2000); State v. Burkett, 179 Ariz. 109, 876 P.2d 1144, 1148 (Ariz.Ct.App.1993); Moody v. Corsentino, 843 P.2d 1355, 1369–72......