Fex v. Michigan

1993-02-23

Headline: Interstate detainer timing limited: Court rules 180‑day trial clock starts when the receiving State actually gets a prisoner’s request, affecting inmates and prosecutors across many states.

Holding: The 180‑day period under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers begins only when the prisoner’s request is actually delivered to the receiving State’s prosecuting officer and court.

Real World Impact:

180‑day deadline starts on actual receipt by the receiving State officials.
Prisoners cannot start the clock just by handing requests to prison staff.
Receiving prosecutors are not at risk of dismissal before they learn of the request.

Topics: interstate detainers, prisoner rights, trial deadlines, criminal procedure

Summary

Background

This case involves a prisoner held in Indiana who faced new charges in Michigan and whose Michigan prosecutor lodged a detainer. The prisoner asked Indiana prison officials to forward a request for final disposition under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD). The request was transmitted by the prisoner in September, mailed by prison authorities, and received in Michigan on September 26; the Michigan trial began months later. The prisoner argued the 180‑day IAD deadline should run from when he gave the request to prison staff, not from when Michigan received it.

Reasoning

The Court examined the IAD language and related provisions and concluded the text and structure point to actual delivery to the receiving State as the trigger. The majority noted Article III(b) requires registered or certified mail and a return receipt, which records delivery to the receiving officials, and reasoned the receiving State should not lose its case before it even knows of the request. The Court rejected the prisoner’s argument that giving the request to prison staff should start the clock and affirmed the Michigan court’s judgment.

Real world impact

The decision means the 180‑day deadline for bringing a prisoner to trial under the IAD begins when the prosecuting officer and court in the receiving State actually receive the prisoner’s request. Prisoners cannot force the clock to run merely by handing papers to prison officials; proof of delivery to the receiving State controls. The ruling applies to the many States that are parties to the IAD and shapes how detainers and trial timing are handled.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Blackmun (joined by Justice Stevens) dissented, arguing the provision focuses on the prisoner’s act and that transmission to the warden should start the clock to protect prisoners from delays by prison officials.