|
No. 136751
| The People of the State of Michigan, |
|
Frank J. Bernacki |
Plaintiff-Appellee, |
|
|
| v |
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals) |
|
|
(Wayne - Hathaway, M.) |
|
|
| Kobeay Quran Swafford, |
|
Craig A. Daly |
| Defendant-Appellant. |
|
|
| __________________________________________ |
|
|
Click to view briefs in Adobe format:
Plaintiff-Appellee's Brief on Appeal>>
Plaintiff-Appellee's Supplemental Brief>>
Defendant-Appellant's Brief on Appeal>>
Defendant-Appellant's Reply Brief>>
Background
The Interstate Agreement on Detainers, MCL 780.601, is an interstate compact that requires “a person [who] has entered upon a term of imprisonment” – “whenever during the continuance of the term of imprisonment there is pending in any other party state any untried indictment, information or complaint on the basis of which a detainer has been lodged against the prisoner” – to be brought to trial within 180 days after providing certain notice to the prosecuting jurisdiction. Kobeay Quran Swafford was charged with crimes in Wayne County, Michigan while being held on federal charges in Tennessee; the Wayne County prosecutor sent the U.S. Marshals in Tennessee a notice of detainer on June 1, 2004. Swafford pleaded guilty to the federal charges in September 2004, and was sentenced on November 19, 2004 to federal prison. On March 2, 2005, Swafford was notified of the detainer; on March 7, the Wayne County Prosecutor’s office and the Wayne County Circuit Court clerk’s office received notice that Swafford was requesting disposition of the outstanding charges and that he would be released from federal prison on February 1, 2007. On September 16, 2005, the prosecutor’s office was notified by federal authorities that the 180-day limit under the IAD had expired and that Swafford intended to move to dismiss the charges because he had not been tried within 180 days. On October 5, 2005, the Detroit Police Department took custody of Swafford, and he was arraigned on the outstanding charges. Swafford’s motion to dismiss the charges was granted by the trial court, which concluded that the IAD had been violated. The prosecutor appealed; the first Court of Appeals ruling, in favor of the prosecutor, was vacated by the Michigan Supreme Court, which remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of documentation Swafford provided. On reconsideration, in a split unpublished opinion, the Court of Appeals again reversed the trial court and reinstated the charges against Swafford. The majority held that the June 1, 2004 detainer sent from the prosecutor to the U.S. Marshal was not a valid detainer for purposes of the IAD. Because no valid detainer under the IAD was ever filed, the majority held that the provisions of the IAD did not apply and that the trial court erred when it dismissed the charges against Swafford. The dissenting judge concluded that the detainer became a valid detainer for purposes of the IAD “no later than March 2, 2005, when it accompanied defendant to federal prison, was verified, and the prosecutor was notified that defendant was requesting disposition on the outstanding charges filed against him.” The dissenting judge would have affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the charges. Swafford appeals.
Top of Page
|
