Agreement on Detainers
Source:
Section 135.775 — Agreement on Detainers, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors135.html.
Notes of Decisions
In general
Nothing in this section indicates an intent by the legislature to change the rule that concurrent sentences may be provided only when they may be served in the same institution. State v. Stewart, 6 Or App 264, 487 P2d 889 (1971)
The Board of Parole did not act illegally in imposing upon the prisoner a condition that he sign a waiver of extradition before being granted parole to authorities of another state. Bailleaux v. Cupp, 535 F2d 543 (1976)
Where defendant refused to cooperate with prison officials of sending state in providing requisite information for certificate of inmate status, such information was important ingredient of receiving state’s decision whether to prosecute prisoner and prisoner was not denied right to speedy trial under Interstate Agreement on Detainers. State v. DeMotte, 42 Or App 413, 600 P2d 923 (1979)
Where no detainer based upon untried indictment, information or complaint had been filed against defendant, Interstate Agreement on Detainers did not become operative and state was not bound by its provisions, so there could be no denial of right to speedy trial under this section. State v. Coffman, 59 Or App 18, 650 P2d 144 (1982)
Defendant, who was convicted but fled state before sentencing and was arrested, convicted and sentenced for crimes committed in California, cannot be returned to Oregon under Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD) for sentencing proceeding because defendant was tried in Oregon prior to fleeing and IAD applies only to pending untried charges. State v. Sills, 260 Or App 384, 317 P3d 307 (2013), Sup Ct review denied
Article III
Article III does not apply if: 1) detaining authority is not party to agreement; 2) defendant has not entered upon “term of imprisonment” when he writes demand letter; or 3) demand letter does not contain information required by this article. State v. Cox, 12 Or App 215, 505 P2d 360 (1973), Sup Ct review denied
Defendant’s rights under Interstate Compact on Detainers are triggered only by lodging of detainer, and thus defendant’s right under this section to speedy trial was not violated where defendant incarcerated in foreign state signed and forwarded forms requesting trial eleven months before Oregon detainers were lodged against him. State v. Hibdon, 36 Or App 97, 583 P2d 597 (1978)
Where defendant requested trial under this section, he did not acquiesce in trial after expiration of statutory period by failing to object to trial date at arraignment. State v. Arwood, 46 Or App 653, 612 P2d 763 (1980)
Under the Interstate Agreement, notice and request must be sent by prisoner to custodian, not to prosecutor and, therefore, defendant’s attempts to initiate speedy trial proceedings by directly contacting Clackamas County District Attorney were ineffective to start running of 180-day period. State v. Smith, 64 Or App 588, 669 P2d 368 (1983)
Section did not apply to Washington inmate who requested that he be brought to trial within 180 days on charges pending in Oregon because he was paroled before end of that period; several jail terms, served in different jurisdictions, do not constitute a single term of imprisonment for purposes of Interstate Agreement on Detainers. State v. Foster, 107 Or App 481, 812 P2d 440 (1991)
180-day period for bringing prisoner to trial does not commence until prisoner’s request for final disposition of charges has actually been delivered to court and prosecuting officer. State v. Burss, 316 Or 1, 848 P2d 596 (1993)
Where 180-day period for bringing prisoner to trial has expired, remedy lies with court in receiving state. Freeman v. Hand, 158 Or App 489, 974 P2d 788 (1999), Sup Ct review denied
Where defendant is aware that interstate detainer has been lodged and defendant knowingly fails to file trial demand, defendant is precluded from asserting that subsequent period of delay violates speedy trial right under [former] ORS 135.747. State v. Ayers, 203 Or App 683, 126 P3d 1241 (2006), modified 207 Or App 668, 143 P3d 251 (2006), Sup Ct review denied
Article IV
Where first indictment was quashed only six days before defendant’s speedy trial period would expire, court did not err in granting state 30-day continuance to resubmit case to grand jury. State v. King, 84 Or App 165, 733 P2d 472 (1987), Sup Ct review denied, aff’d King v. Brown, 8 F3d 1403 (9th Cir. 1993)
Where defendant moved for continuance and to suppress evidence, to which state appealed, time limitation under Article IV was tolled without state requesting continuance. State v. Bernson, 106 Or App 252, 807 P2d 309 (1991), Sup Ct review denied
Article V
This section permits receiving state to retain custody of defendant to bring new charges arising out of same incident as charge in indictment under which defendant was transferred to Oregon. State v. King, 84 Or App 165, 733 P2d 472 (1987), Sup Ct review denied, aff’d on other grounds, King v. Brown, 8 F3d 1403 (9th Cir. 1993)
Article VI
Section (b) applies only to persons presently in sending state. State v. King, 84 Or App 165, 733 P2d 472 (1987), Sup Ct review denied, aff’d on other grounds, King v. Brown, 8 F3d 1403 (9th Cir. 1993)
Attorney General Opinions
A delayed sentence as an indictment not finally disposed of within Article III(a); purpose of Agreement under Article I, liberally construed under Article IX, as requiring imposition of sentence to aid rehabilitation, (1971) Vol 35, p 811
Up to date