Summary
The Montana Supreme Court held that the District Court improperly denied Damien Nickerson’s motion without addressing his constitutional speedy-trial claim. Although the Interstate Agreement on Detainers did not apply because Montana had not filed a detainer, incarceration in federal prison did not relieve the State of its constitutional speedy-trial obligations. The court reversed and remanded for consideration under the factors stated in State v. Ariegwe.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Nickerson could invoke the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act when no detainer had been filed against him.
- Whether the District Court erred by denying Nickerson's motion without addressing his independent constitutional right to a speedy trial under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Holdings
- The Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act does not apply unless a detainer has been filed with the custodial state by the state having the untried charges.
- The District Court improperly denied Nickerson's motion without addressing his constitutional speedy-trial rights; the case must be remanded for consideration of that claim under the factors in State v. Ariegwe.
Key quotations
“The constitutional right to a speedy trial is distinct from the right to a speedy trial under the IAD.” (¶ 12)
“We hold that the District Court improperly denied Nickerson’s motion without addressing his speedy trial rights. We reverse and remand for consideration of Nickerson’s constitutional speedy trial claim in accordance with the factors set forth in State v. Ariegwe.” (¶ 13)
Factual background
The Flathead County Attorney charged Nickerson with felony burglary by information on August 9, 2007, and the District Court issued an arrest warrant the same day. Nickerson was then arrested on unrelated federal charges, sentenced in federal court, and committed to federal prison. More than six years later, while incarcerated in Oregon, Nickerson moved to dismiss the warrant and underlying burglary charge based on the alleged denial of his constitutional right to a speedy trial. A federal Bureau of Prisons letter referenced the outstanding warrant and asked the county whether it wanted a detainer lodged, but the record did not show that a detainer was ever filed.
Procedural history
The State charged Nickerson with felony burglary by information in 2007 and the District Court issued an arrest warrant. After Nickerson was imprisoned on unrelated federal charges, he moved pro se in 2013 to dismiss the warrant and underlying charge, asserting violations of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers and his constitutional speedy-trial rights. The District Court denied the motion without explanation. The Montana Supreme Court reversed and remanded for consideration of the constitutional speedy-trial claim.
Remand instructions
The District Court must consider Nickerson's constitutional speedy-trial claim in accordance with the factors set forth in State v. Ariegwe.