Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Smith v. United States

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Decided December 15, 1983No. 81-1437Published

1ConcurrenceFerren, Associate Judge

I concur in the judgment of affirmance, but not in the opinion of the court, for I do not believe “a detainer has been lodged against” appellant within the meaning of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD), D.C.Code § 24-701, Art. 111(a) (1981). If the warrant had been lodged as a detainer, as the opinion of the court assumes, I could not find substantial compliance with the IAD. On the facts here, the custodial jurisdiction, South Carolina, did not inform appellant “of his right to make a request for final disposition of the indictment ... on which the detainer is based,” as required by…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Smith v. HooeySupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  2. United States v. MauroSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
  3. Christian v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1978
  4. Pittman v. StateSupreme Court of Delaware · 1973
  5. Robert Lee Ridgeway v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1977

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API