Bowling v. State, 68A05-0906-CR-306
5th Dist., 12-30-09, Ind.App.
Attorney: Dale W. Arnett
Holding: Under the IAD, a defendant must be brought to trial within 180 days after he has “caused to be delivered” to the prosecutor and the appropriate court written notice of where he is incarcerated and of his request for final disposition of charges. I.C. 35-33-10-4, Art. 3(a)). These procedures are not mere technicalities. State v. Greenwood, 665 N.E.2d 579 (Ind. 1996). A prisoner’s delivery of IAD materials to prison officials does not constitute proper notice under the IAD. Fex v. Michigan, 507 U.S. 43, 113 S.Ct. 1085, 122 L. Ed. 2d 406 (1993). “Even if delivery of the notice is delayed due to negligence or malice on the part of prison authorities, the IAD’s clock does not start running until the notice is actually received by both the prosecutor and the court.” U.S. v. Brewington, 512 F.3d 995 (7th Cir. 2008).
Here, trial court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss pursuant to IAD, because there was no evidence that he delivered speedy trial request to trial court and prosecutor. Because the 180-day period would not commence until trial court and prosecutor received Bowling’s IAD request, and because neither received such a request, there could not be an IAD violation because the 180-day period never commenced. Court noted there was no evidence Defendant attempted to confirm that his request had been forwarded to the clerk, trial court, and prosecutor. Held, judgment affirmed.
