On Point: 18. Extradition/detainers

State v. Jonathon S. Geiger, 2022AP1270-CR, District III, 7/11/23, not recommended for publication; case activity (briefs available)

Geiger argues the circuit court erroneously ordered him to pay extradition costs in connection with a sentencing after revocation hearing. COA rejects his statutory construction arguments and affirms.

State v. Rafael D. Newson, 2018AP551, 9/18/18, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Newson claims that his trial and postconviction lawyers were ineffective for failing to raise lack of jurisdiction caused by the State’s failure to file its complaint against him before he was extradited to Arizona. He also argued that the Escalona bar should not apply given that he was in Arizona at the time of his direct appeal and his first two postconviction motions. The court of appeals did not bite on either.

State v. James Charleston, 2016AP2116-CR, 10/18/17, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Charleston was in custody in Illinois and had pending Wisconsin charges. Twice he submitted to his Illinois jailers properly prepared requests for final disposition of those charges under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers. The first request, in 2014, somehow didn’t make it to the Wisconsin authorities; the second in 2015 did and thus commenced the 180-day clock to try him or dismiss the case with prejudice. But, he wasn’t tried within 180 days, due in part to delays Charleston caused or agreed to. So, no dismissal.

State v. Ervin Thomas, 2013 WI App 78; case activity

The trial court properly calculated the 180-day speedy trial time limit from the prosecutor’s actual receipt of Thomas’s demand for disposition, and not from the receipt of the demand three days earlier by the county courthouse’s “Information Management Services Distribution” [sic] office. Under § 976.05(3)(a) and State v. Whittemore,

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court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Panick: Paul G. LaZotte, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity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

State v. Karon M. Asmus, 2010 WI App 48; for Asmus: Donald C. Dudley

Interstate Detainer Act claim is waived by guilty plea:

¶3        A guilty plea constitutes a waiver of all nonjurisdictional defects and defenses. State v. Kelty, 2006 WI 101, ¶18, 294 Wis. 2d 62, 716 N.W.2d 886. This rule applies even though the defendant attempts to preserve an issue by raising it in the circuit court. 

court of appeals decision, pro se

Detainer, definition, nationwide arrest warrant

Issue/Holding: Faxing to the defendant’s prison an arrest warrant and complaint, followed by verbal confirmation of the validity of same, satisfied the § 976.05 definition of “detainer,” notwithstanding the issuing authority’s express disavowal to the prison of intent to lodge a detainer.

 ¶11   We fail to see how the foregoing could possibly not demonstrate “notification filed with the institution in which a prisoner is serving a sentence,

Guilty plea waiver; detainers

Click here for court of appeals decision 

Defense counsel: Susan E. Alesia, SPD, Madison Appellate

 Issue/Holding:   

¶6        Waiver. Before addressing the merits, the State argues that Tarrant’s no contest plea constitutes a waiver of all nonjurisdictional defects and defenses. State v. Multaler, 2002 WI 35, ¶54, 252 Wis. 2d 54, 643 N.W.2d 437.

State ex rel Frederick Lee Pharm v. Bartow, 2007 WI 13, affirming 2005 WI App 215
For Pharm: Jon G. Furlow, Nia Enemuch-Trammell,Roisin H. Bell (Pro Bono)

Issue: Whether, following Pharm’s release in another state prison on life-time parole and his return here under the IAD to serve a Wisconsin sentence, he was subject to ch. 980 commitment proceedings on his release from that sentence.

State ex rel Frederick Lee Pharm v. Bartow, 2007 WI 13, affirming 2005 WI App 215
For Pharm: Jon G. Furlow, Nia Enemuch-Trammell, Roisin H. Bell (Pro Bono Project)

Issue/Holding:

¶14      The IAD is an interstate compact that prescribes “procedures by which a member State may obtain for trial a prisoner incarcerated in another member jurisdiction and by which the prisoner may demand the speedy disposition of certain charges pending against him in another jurisdiction.”