Virginia Lawyers Weekly

A defendant convicted of statutory burglary and grand larceny has failed to show that he complied with the requirements of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers and the trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the Rockbridge county indictments charging him with these crimes on July 20, 2006.

Defendant asserts that pursuant to the IAD he was required to have been tried within 180 days of Jan. 18, 2007, the day the commonwealth’s attorney for Staunton received his letter requesting a speedy trial.

The record on appeal reveals that no indictment, information or complaint, as defined in Article III of the IAD, was pending against defendant in Rockbridge County or any other locality in Virginia, during his incarceration in Ohio. While felony arrest warrants were issued for defendant on Aug. 1, 2006 in Rockbridge County, he was not indicted on those charges until Nov. 5, 2007, after he returned to Virginia. We have previously held that the IAD was intended to apply only to instruments such as indictments, informations or complaints upon which the detainer could be tried immediatley upon his return. This definition does not include a felony warrant of arrest.

Defendant admitted to the trial court that no notice of demand for trial under the IAD was sent to the commonwealth’s attorney for Rockbridge County, and the record on appeal contains no notice filed with any Rockbridge County court invoking the protections of the IAD.

At the hearing on the motion to dismiss, defendant produced only a copy of a certified mail return receipt showing mail delivery to the commonwealth’s attorney for the city of Staunton. Defendant testified the receipt was for a letter he sent demanding a speedy trial. The record on appeal does not contain the letter or the “warden’s certificate” required under Article III(a)-(b) of Code § 53.1-210.

As we have previously held, in order to invoke the benefits of the IAD, the prisoner must make a written request for final disposition of an indictment upon which a detainer is based and deliver that requires to the warden of the institution where the prisoner is incarcerated, and the warden must forward the request, together with a certificate providing certain information about the prisoner’s terms of confinement, to the appropriate prosecuting officer and court of the receiving state.

Here, defendant failed to show he complied with the IAD requirements and the trial court did not err in denying the motion to dismiss the Rockbridge County indictments.

Convictions affirmed.

Peyton v. Commonwealth (Felton, J.) No. 0683-08-3, May 12, 2009; Rockbridge County Cir.Ct. (Irvine) James F. Doss III for appellant; Robert H. Anderson III, Sr. AAG, for appellee. VLW 009-7-218(UP), 6 pp.

Close this Window Bookmark and Share This Page

Save to Browser Favorites / Bookmarks

Print RSS Feed Ask backflip blinklist BlogBookmark Bloglines BlogMarks Blogsvine BuddyMarks BUMPzee! CiteULike co.mments

Connotea del.icio.us Digg diigo DotNetKicks DropJack dzone Facebook Fark Faves Feed Me Links Friendsite folkd.com

Furl Google Hugg Jeqq Kaboodle kirtsy linkaGoGo linkedin LinksMarker Ma.gnolia Mister Wong Mixx MySpace

MyWeb Netvouz Newsvine oneview OnlyWire PlugIM Propeller Reddit Rojo Segnalo Shoutwire Simpy Slashdot

Sphere Sphinn Spurl Squidoo StumbleUpon Technorati ThisNext Tumblr Twitter Webride Windows Live Yahoo!

Email This to a Friend

Copy HTML: 

 If you like this then please subscribe to the RSS Feed.

More »