Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Carpenter

United States District Court, D. Kansas

December 4, 2019

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
JOSHUA S. CARPENTER 01, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          Daniel D. Crabtree United States District Judge

         This matter is before the court on pro se prisoner Joshua S. Carpenter's Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad prosquendum (Doc. 45).[1] The government has filed a response (Doc. 47). For the reasons explained below, the court denies Mr. Carpenter's motion.

         I. Procedural History

         On May 25, 2017, Mr. Carpenter entered guilty pleas under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C) to one count of possession of a firearm by a prohibited person and one count of possession of stolen mail. Doc. 24. The parties proposed a sentence of not more than 27 months' imprisonment, followed by two years of supervised release. Id. at 2-3 (¶ 3). On October 24, 2017-consistent with the parties' joint recommendation-the court sentenced Mr. Carpenter to 27 months' imprisonment, followed by two years of supervised release. Doc. 41.

         The United States Bureau of Prisons released defendant from federal custody on June 20, 2018.[2] On August 14, 2018, the court issued a warrant for Mr. Carpenter's arrest for violating the terms of his supervised release. Doc. 43.[3] Currently, Mr. Carpenter is incarcerated in the Kansas Department of Corrections. His earliest release date is December 6, 2019.[4]

         II. Discussion

         Mr. Carpenter's motion asserts that “[a]ny [p]erson in a penal or correctional institute of this state may request final disposition of any untried indictment, information[, ] [m]otion to [r]evoke probation, or [c]omplaint [p]ending against such person in [t]his [s]tate.” Doc. 45 at 1. The court liberally construes his motion as a request to be transferred into federal custody under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act (“IADA”). IADA provides that:

Whenever a person has entered upon a term of imprisonment in a penal or correctional institution of a party State, and whenever during the continuance of the term of imprisonment there is pending in any other party State any untried indictment, information, or complaint on the basis of which a detainer has been lodged against the prisoner, he shall be brought to trial within one hundred and eighty days after he shall have caused to be delivered to the prosecuting officer and the appropriate court of the prosecuting officer's jurisdiction written notice of the place of his imprisonment and his request for a final disposition to be made of the indictment, information, or complaint . . . .

         Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act, 18 U.S.C.A. app. 2 § 2. The court denies Mr. Carpenter's motion because under the IADA, “a detainer based on a probation-violation charge is not a detainer based on any ‘any untried indictment, information or complaint,' within the meaning of Art. III.” Carchman v. Nash, 473 U.S. 716, 726 (1985); see also United States v. Gomez-Diaz, 415 Fed.Appx. 890, 895 (10th Cir. 2011) (IADA, “which requires immediate transfer of a prisoner to another jurisdiction when there are detainers lodged on untried criminal charges, clearly does not apply to supervised release revocation detainers.”); United States v. Romero, 511 F.3d 1281, 1284 (10th Cir. 2008) (IADA “is inapplicable to probation or parole revocation detainers.”). Thus, IADA doesn't provide the relief Mr. Carpenter seeks with his motion.

         III. Conclusion

         The court denies Mr. Carpenter's motion because IADA doesn't apply to detainers for supervised release violations. Mr. Carpenter has no pending federal information, indictment, or complaint against him, so no right to a final disposition under IADA exists.

         IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT THAT Mr Carpenter's Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad prosequendum (Doc. 45) is denied.

         IT ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.