≡ Menu

Interstate Agreement on Detainers

State v. Jerome Mark Panick, Jr., 2011AP1107-CR, District 3, 1/4/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Panick: Paul G. LaZotte, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

The court rejects Panick’s argument that he “substantially complied” with IAD requirements for demanding a speedy trial on a detainer as set forth in § 976.05(3)(b). (Panick concededly fell short of the literal requirements – he mailed a letter to the prosecutor but failed to send it certified or to the local court or to obtain the warden’s certificate.) Fex v. Michigan, 507 U.S. 43, 49-50, 52 (1993), applied and followed.

¶17      Here, irrespective of whether Panick’s letter to the State substantially complied with the IAD’s requirements, he failed to also send notice to the court.  Because Fex requires that both the court and the prosecutor receive actual notice of a request for final disposition, we cannot construe his 2008 letter to the State as also putting the court on notice.  See id.see also United States v. Washington, 596 F.3d 777, 781 (10th Cir. 2010) (Fex requires actual delivery of a request to both the prosecutor and the court); United States v. Brewington, 512 F.3d 995 (7th Cir. 2008) (notice sent only to the prosecutor was insufficient to trigger the IAD’s 180-day time limitation).

{ 0 comments… add one }

Leave a Comment