U.S. v. Bittle

• Citation: 699 F.2d 1201,226 U.S. App. D.C. 49
• Decision Date: 25 January 1983
• Docket Number: No. 82-1408,82-1408
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America v. Curtis Lee BITTLE, a/k/a Lee Curtis Brittle, Appellant.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)

Page 1201

699 F.2d 1201

226 U.S.App.D.C. 49

UNITED STATES of America v. Curtis Lee BITTLE, a/k/a Lee Curtis Brittle, Appellant.

No. 82-1408.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued Oct. 20, 1982.

Decided Jan. 25, 1983.

David A. Levitt, Washington, D.C. (appointed by this court as co-counsel), for appellant. Richard S. Kohn, Washington, D.C. (also appointed by this court), was on the brief, for appellant.

Wendy Bebie, Asst. U.S. Atty., Washington, D.C., with whom Stanley S. Harris, U.S. Atty., John A. Terry, Asst. U.S. Atty., Washington, D.C., at the time the brief was filed, and David W. Stanley, Asst. U.S. Atty., Washington, D.C., were on the brief, for appellee.

Before TAMM, EDWARDS, and BORK, Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge TAMM.

TAMM, Circuit Judge:

The Speedy Trial Act provides that an indictment must be filed within thirty days of an individual's arrest. Section 3161(d)(1) of the Act usually permits the time period for indictment to run anew when a complaint is dismissed. The district court, however, interpreted the section not to apply when the complaint has been dismissed more than thirty days after arrest and the dismissal would have been with prejudice if the issue had been addressed. We agree with this construction and find that the district court properly exercised its discretion in determining that the complaint should have been dismissed without prejudice and, therefore, that the district court correctly denied the motion to dismiss the indictment. Accordingly, we affirm.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND & STATUTORY FRAMEWORK

Defendant was arrested on December 10, 1981. On the following day a complaint was filed charging him with forging and uttering a United States Treasury check in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 495. On January 22, 1982, the United States dismissed the complaint by filing a praecipe. On January 28 an original indictment was returned charging defendant with two counts of forging and uttering a United States Treasury check, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 495, and one count of possession of stolen mail matter, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1708. These charges were based on the same criminal conduct as the complaint that had previously been dismissed. On February 5 defendant filed a motion to dismiss the indictment for violation of the Speedy Trial Act and Local Rule 2-7(4)(a) of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. United States District Judge Joyce Hens Green denied defendant's motion. On March 3, after a stipulated bench trial, the court found defendant guilty of possession of stolen mail matter. The other two counts of the indictment were dismissed in accordance with the stipulation. Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for fifteen months and fined $750; execution of the sentence was suspended, and defendant was placed on probation for eighteen months with special conditions.

Title 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3161(b) provides that an indictment must be filed within thirty days of an individual's arrest. ¹ Title 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3161(c)(1) provides that the trial of an individual must commence within seventy days of the latter of the filing of the indictment and the individual's appearance before a judicial officer. ² If these time limits are not met, the indictment or the charges contained in the complaint must be dismissed. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3162(a) (1976). ³ The trial judge may dismiss the indictment or complaint with or without prejudice. Id. If a complaint is dismissed without prejudice, and thereafter a complaint or indictment is filed based on the same criminal episode as the first complaint, "the provisions of [subsections 3161(b) and (c) ] shall be applicable with respect to such subsequent complaint [or] indictment." 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3161(d)(1) (Supp. V 1981). ⁴ If an indictment is dismissed upon motion of the government, and thereafter a charge is filed for the same offense, "any period of delay from the date the charge was dismissed to the date the time limitation would commence to run as to the subsequent charge had there been no previous charge" is excluded in applying the time limits of subsections 3161(b) and (c). 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3161(h)(6) (1976). ⁵ The District Court Rules supplement the Speedy Trial Act, but they do not alter the statutory framework described above. See D.D.C.R. 2-7(4), (8). ⁶

The trial court recognized that the 43-day period between defendant's arrest and the dismissal of the complaint and the 49-day period between defendant's arrest and indictment exceeded the Speedy Trial Act's 30-day time limit for indictment. Trial Record, Part 2 (T.R.) at 9, 13-14. The court also recognized that the Speedy Trial Act mandated that the complaint be dismissed, as it had been. Id. at 9. Nevertheless, the court held that the indictment could be dismissed only if the complaint should have been dismissed with prejudice. Id. ⁷ Section 3161(d)(1) usually permits the time period for indictment to run anew when a complaint is dismissed. The court, however, interpreted section 3161(d)(1) not to apply when the complaint has been dismissed more than thirty days after the arrest and the dismissal would have been with prejudice if the issue had been addressed. The court, therefore, had to inquire whether the complaint should have been dismissed with or without prejudice. It considered the three factors listed in section 3162(a)(1), the seriousness of the offense, the circumstances leading to the dismissal, and the impact of reprosecution on the administration of justice and on the administration of the Speedy Trial Act, as well as other factors. T.R. at 14-17. The court found that the crime of possessing stolen mail matter is relatively serious, that the government's exceeding the time limit was unintentional and is unlikely to recur, that the delay beyond the time limit was short, and that defendant suffered little prejudice. Id. Weighing these factors, the court found that the complaint should have been dismissed without prejudice. Id. at 16-17. Therefore, it denied the motion to dismiss the indictment.

Defendant contends that section 3161(d)(1) does not apply when a complaint is dismissed more than thirty days after an arrest and that in the present case sections 3161(b) and 3162(a)(1) require that the indictment be dismissed without inquiry into whether the complaint should have been dismissed without prejudice. Alternatively, defendant argues that the trial court misapplied the three factors set forth in section 3162(a)(1) in determining that the complaint should have been dismissed without prejudice. He contends that the general rule is that charges should be dismissed with prejudice and that the court placed undue emphasis on the lack of prejudice to defendant's ability to prepare his case.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Construction of Section 3161(d)(1)

Section 3161(d)(1), rather than section 3161(h)(6), is applicable when a complaint, as distinguished from an indictment, is dismissed by the government and an indictment is later filed. United States v. Krynicki, 689 F.2d 289, 292 (1st Cir.1982); United States v. Peters, 587 F.2d 1267, 1273 (D.C.Cir.1978); Comm. on Administration of the Criminal Law of the Judicial Conference, Guidelines to the Administration of the Speedy Trial Act of 1974 as Amended (Dec., 1979), revised Aug. 1981, at 15-16.

The meaning of section 3161(d)(1) is not apparent at first glance: "If ... any charge contained in a complaint ... is dismissed ..., and thereafter ... [an] indictment is filed ... based on the same conduct ..., the provisions of [subsections 3161(b) and (c) ] shall [apply to] such subsequent ... indictment ...." The section can be read to require that indictments filed after the dismissal of initial charges must be returned within thirty days of the original arrest. This interpretation, however, must be incorrect. First, such an interpretation makes section 3161(d)(1) mere surplusage because section 3161(b) already performs that function (if one disregards the actual meaning of section 3161(d)(1)). Second, this interpretation renders the Speedy Trial Act inconsistent with traditional speedy trial guarantees, which focus on pending criminal proceedings. See United States v. MacDonald, 456 U.S. 1, 102 S.Ct. 1497, 1502, 71 L.Ed.2d 696 (1982) (holding that Sixth Amendment speedy trial guarantee is inapplicable to period between dismissal of military charge and indictment on civilian charge). Third, this interpretation contradicts the legislative history of the Speedy Trial Act.

[Section 3161(d)(1) ] allows latitude to the prosecutor to re-institute prosecution of a criminal defendant whose case has previously been dismissed on non-speedy trial grounds without having to comply with the time limits imposed by the filing of the earlier complaint. To require a prosecutor to conform to indictment and trial time limits which were set by the filing of the original complaint in order to reopen a case on the basis of new evidence would be an insurmountable burden. Thus, when subsequent complaints are brought, the time limits will begin to run from the date of the filing of the subsequent complaint. ⁸

S.Rep. No. 93-1021, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. 33 (1974), reprinted in A. Partridge, Legislative History of Title I of the Speedy Trial Act of 1974 78-79 (1980) (footnote added). Therefore, the correct interpretation of section 3161(d)(1) is that after the dismissal of a complaint, the Act's time limits run anew from the date of the filing of the subsequent complaint or indictment. United States v. Krynicki, 689 F.2d at 293; United States v. Abernathy, 688 F.2d 576, 580 (8th Cir.1982); Frase, The Speedy Trial Act of 1974, 43 U.Chi.L.Rev. 667, 696 (1976). ⁹ This court, however, has questioned in dictum whether section 3161(d)(1) applies when the complaint is dismissed after the time period for indictment has expired.

It may be argued that since the Government did not dismiss the complaint on "speedy trial...