IAD Act

1. Can a state writ of habeus corpus ad prosequendem trigger Article 4E of the IAD Act in taking an inmate from federal to state back to federal custody?

2. Can an accompanying letter with the writ be construed as a detainer which would trigger the IAD Act? This is not a 2241 federal writ - this is a state writ to seek a federal prisoner for state charges.

Thank you.

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN


Case No.: 97-1839-CR

Complete Title

of Case:



State of Wisconsin,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

Danny C. Eesley,

Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner.

ON REVIEW OF A DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS

Reported at: 217 Wis.2d 291, 577 N.W.2d 387

(Ct. App. 1998, Unpublished)



Opinion Filed: April 30, 1999

Submitted on Briefs:

Oral Argument: January 8, 1999

Source of APPEAL

COURT: Circuit

COUNTY: Ashland

JUDGE: Norman L. Yackel

JUSTICES:

Concurred:

Dissented:

Not Participating:

ATTORNEYS: For the defendant-appellant-petitioner there was a brief by Kyle H. Torvinen and Hendricks, Knudson, Gee, Hayden & Torvinen, S.C. , Superior and oral argument by Kyle H. Torvinen.

For the plaintiff-respondent the cause was argued by Michael R. Klos , assistant attorney general, with whom on the brief was James E. Doyle , attorney general.


NOTICE

This opinion is subject to further editing and modification. The final version will appear in the bound volume of the official reports.

No. 97-1839-CR

STATE OF WISCONSIN :
IN SUPREME COURT

State of Wisconsin,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

Danny C. Eesley,

Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner.
FILED

APR 30, 1999

Marilyn L. Graves

Clerk of Supreme Court

Madison, WI



REVIEW of a decision of the Court of Appeals. Affirmed.

. WILLIAM A. BABLITCH, J.Petitioner, Danny C. Eesley (Eesley), requests review of a court of appeals' decision that affirmed his conviction. Eesley, urging a dismissal of the charges, argues that a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum used to deliver him to Wisconsin, was a detainer within the meaning of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers ("IAD" or "Agreement"). Therefore, he argues, according to the provisions of the IAD the failure to bring him to trial within 120 days of his arrival in Wisconsin results in mandatory dismissal of the Wisconsin charges. Because we conclude that a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum is not a detainer, the IAD was not triggered, and Eesley is not afforded the protections of the IAD. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the court of appeals.

2. The facts pertinent to this appeal are limited, and for purposes of this appeal, are conceded. While Eesley was serving a federal prison sentence at the Federal Correctional Institute in Sandstone, Minnesota (FCI, Sandstone), he was charged with a total of 12 separate state offenses in the State of Wisconsin (State). Nine of the charges were filed in Ashland County and three charges were filed in neighboring Bayfield County. By stipulation, all charges were prosecuted in Ashland County.

3. On January 5, 1996, a State of Wisconsin Special Prosecutor filed a petition and writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum addressed to the circuit court. The petition stated that Eesley was "scheduled to appear for initial appearances on felony charges as shown in the attached criminal complaints in the above cases on January 26, 1996 at 9:30 A.M. in the Circuit Court for Ashland County, Wisconsin, before the Honorable Norman L. Yackel, Acting Circuit Judge . . . ."

4. Judge Yackel granted the petition and signed the writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum which was directed to the U.S. Bureau of Prisons. The writ "commanded" that the Bureau of Prisons deliver Eesley to a member of the Ashland County Sheriff's Department on January 25, 1996, so that he could appear "in the above-titled action" on January 26, 1996. The writ also indicated that the Ashland County Sheriff's Department would return Eesley immediately after the proceeding unless otherwise ordered by the court.

5. The federal prison warden at the FCI, Sandstone delivered Eesley to the Ashland County Sheriff as requested by the writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum. Eesley made his initial appearance on January 26, 1996, on 11 of 12 charges. (One of the Ashland County charges was not filed against Eesley until March 7, 1996.) After the initial appearance, Eesley was returned to the FCI, Sandstone. .........

In regards to the person who answered my question regarding the IAD Act, THANK YOU! Please look at Alabama v. Bozeman. Also, only 2 means under the IAD for state to receive federal inmate - extradition or IAD Act. Writ of habeaus corpus ad prosequendem is not valid means only for feds due to the Supremacy Clause. Also still looking for an answer regarding an acoompanying letter with the writ - can that letter be construed asa detainer to trigger the IAD Act? I appreciate any and all help as this matter has personal significance to me. Please also look at the US v. Mauro case and Coomonwealth of MA v. Wilson. I need the answers to try to set someone free!!