Bryant v. Commonwealth

199 S.W.3d 169 (Ky. 2006) · Supreme Court of Kentucky · August 24, 2006 · No. 2005-SC-000194-TG

Summary

The Supreme Court of Kentucky affirmed Steve Bryant's convictions and sentences for first-degree robbery and first-degree assault. The court held that the Interstate Agreement on Detainers' 180-day trial period did not begin because Bryant's request for final disposition was never delivered to the appropriate Kentucky prosecuting officer or court, relying on Fex v. Michigan.

Court
Supreme Court of Kentucky
Writing for the Court
Justice Roach
Jurisdiction
Kentucky
Decision date
August 24, 2006
Docket number
2005-SC-000194-TG
Procedural posture
Bryant entered a conditional guilty plea in the Caldwell Circuit Court to first-degree robbery and first-degree assault after the court denied his motion to dismiss under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers. He reserved the right to appeal the denial of that motion and appealed as a matter of right to the Supreme Court of Kentucky.
Standard of review
The Supreme Court reviewed the trial court's denial of the motion to dismiss and the interpretation and application of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers.
Precedential value
Published Kentucky Supreme Court opinion; precedential
Parties
Steve Bryant v. Commonwealth of Kentucky
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

interstate compactsspeedy trialcriminal procedurestatutory interpretationappellate procedure

Practice areas

criminal procedureinterstate detainersappellate procedurestatutory interpretation

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the 180-day period under Article III of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers begins when an incarcerated defendant gives a disposition request to prison officials or only when the request is actually delivered to the appropriate prosecuting officer and court.
  2. Whether Bryant's charges had to be dismissed because he was not brought to trial within 180 days after he gave his disposition request to Illinois prison officials.

Holdings

  1. The 180-day period under Article III of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers does not begin until the prisoner's request for final disposition is actually delivered to both the court and the prosecuting officer of the jurisdiction that lodged the detainer.
  2. Dismissal was not required because Bryant's disposition request was never delivered to the appropriate Kentucky prosecuting officer or court, so the 180-day period was never triggered.
  3. Lovitt v. Commonwealth is overruled to the extent that it would require a result different from the rule established by Fex v. Michigan.

Key quotations

The Supreme Court went on to hold "that the 180-day time period in Article III(a) of the IAD does not commence until the prisoner's request for final disposition of the charges against him has actually been delivered to the court and prosecuting officer of the jurisdiction that lodged the detainer against him." (199 S.W.3d at 174)
As such, the 180-day time limit imposed by the IAD never began to run because neither the prosecutor nor the court was ever informed of Appellant's request for disposition of the charges. (199 S.W.3d at 174)

Factual background

Bryant was indicted in Kentucky for first-degree robbery and first-degree assault while he was incarcerated at the Illinois River Correctional Center. After a detainer was lodged, he executed Interstate Agreement on Detainers Forms I and II requesting final disposition, but prison staff did not deliver the request to the Caldwell Commonwealth's Attorney or the Caldwell Circuit Court. He was transferred to Kentucky more than 180 days after signing the request, and the trial court found that the request had never been delivered to the appropriate prosecutor or court. After the jury could not reach a verdict, Bryant entered a conditional guilty plea and received consecutive sentences totaling twenty-one years.

Procedural history

Bryant was indicted in Caldwell County and, while incarcerated in Illinois, requested final disposition under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers. Illinois prison officials sent the request to a county attorney and to the office of the county judge executive, but not to the Caldwell Commonwealth's Attorney or Caldwell Circuit Court. The trial court found that the appropriate prosecutor and court had not received the request and denied Bryant's motion to dismiss. After the jury failed to reach a verdict, Bryant entered a conditional guilty plea, was sentenced to consecutive terms totaling twenty-one years, and appealed. The Supreme Court of Kentucky affirmed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…