HomeMy WebLinkAbout99-432 miscellaneousCOMMONWEALTH OF PENNA.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
ROBERT J. SUTTON, JR.
99-432 MISCELLANEOUS
IN RE: PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT
Bayley, J., October 25, 1999:-
Petitioner, Robert J. Sutton, Jr., is an inmate under the jurisdiction of the
Pennsylvania Department of Corrections at the State Correctional Institution in Camp Hill. He
filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus seeking an order dismissing charges against him in
the State of Maryland for which Maryland has lodged a detainer against him in Pennsylvania.
Petitioner maintains that Maryland has not complied with the Agreement on Detainers.'
Petitioner seeks an order to "quash the detainer lodged against [him] at SCI Camp Hill, and to
order a dismissal of the charges within the indictment at once."
In O'Conner v. Cole, 17 D. & C. 3d 233 (1980), a similar case arising from a
detainer filed by the State of Maryland against a prisoner at SCI Camp Hill, this court
stated that under the Agreement on Detainers:
[t]he governor of the sending state may deny a request for temporary
custody, but even the governor does not have the authority to dismiss a
detainer. Although the purpose of the Agreement on Detainers is 'to
encourage the expeditious and orderly disposition' of outstanding
charges, the act does not give a sending state the authority to dismiss a
' The Agreement on Detainers is at 42 Pa.C.S. Section 9101 et seq. in
Pennsylvania. In Maryland it is at Md. Code 1957, art. 27 §§ 616A et seq.
99-432 MISCELLANEOUS
detainer filed by a party state either through the courts or through the
governor's office.
In Commonwealth v. Shaffer, 40 Cumberland L.J. 253 (1990), this court again
stated in a similar case arising from a detainer filed by the State of Maryland against a
prisoner at SCI Camp Hill:
The failure of a state to bring an inmate to trial as required under the
Agreement on Detainers requires dismissal of charges by the appropriate
court of the jurisdiction where the charge is pending. Johnson v. Cuyler,
535 F. Supp. 466 (E.D. Pa. 1982).7 This court had no jurisdiction whereby
we could have dismissed the Maryland detainer even if there was a
violation of the Agreement on Detainers. See, Commonwealth v.
Gonce, 320 Pa. Superior Ct. 19 (1983).
7 Once, however, a defendant is not being held under separate
charges in the sending state, the demanding state must proceed within
the time requirements set forth in the Extradition Act, otherwise, defendant
is entitled to the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. See,.
Commonwealth ex rel Goodrue v. Roth, 230 Pa. Superior Ct. 70 (1974).
Because the within petition seeks an order to quash the detainer and dismiss the
pending charges in Maryland, we will dismiss it without a hearing or the appointment of
counsel.
AND NOW, this '~'""
habeas corpus, IS DISMISSED,
ORDER OF COURT
day of October, 1999, the within petition for a writ of
-2-
99-432 MISCELLANEOUS
Robert J. Sutton, Jr., DZ-1423, Pro se
SCI Camp Hill
P.O. Box 200
Camp Hill, PA 17001-0200
Edgar B. ~'yley'~
Department of Corrections
P.O. Box 598
Camp Hill, PA 17001-0598
:saa
-3-