Legal Opinion
State v. FROHNHOFER
New Mexico Court of Appeals
Decided August 23, 2011No. 30,001; 33,192PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
BUSTAMANTE, Judge.
{1} Pursuant to the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD), NMSA 1978, Section 31-5-12 (1971), the State of New Mexico lodged a detainer against Defendant Daniel Frohnhofer. Defendant requested a final disposition of the detainer, triggering a 180-day deadline for the commencement of his trial. Prior to the deadline, Defendant was paroled in Colorado. When his trial did not commence before the 180-day deadline, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss. The district court denied the motion. Because we conclude that the IAD does not apply to parolees, we affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Robinson v. Shell Oil Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1997
- Lamie v. United States TrusteeSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
- Perrin v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- New York v. HillSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
- Headley v. Morgan Management Corp.New Mexico Court of Appeals · 2005
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Cleveland Hts. v. ColemanOhio Court of Appeals · 2021
- Turner v. StateWyoming Supreme Court · 2015
- State v. FronhoferNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 2011