Crosland v. State
Utah Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
DURHAM, Justice:
Petitioner Darwin Willard Crosland seeks a writ of mandamus to compel dismissal of the information filed against him in the First Circuit Court of Box Elder County. At issue is the proper interpretation of article III of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (“IAD” or “Agreement”).1 Utah Code Ann. § 77-29-5 (1990). The district court and the Utah *944Court of Appeals denied Crosland extraordinary relief. We likewise deny his request in light of the United States Supreme Court’s recent decision in Fex v. Michigan, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 1085, 122 L.Ed.2d 406 (1993).
On February 11,…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- United States v. MauroSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Cuyler v. AdamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Fex v. MichiganSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Commonwealth v. MartensMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1986
- State v. StillingUtah Supreme Court · 1989
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- State v. SomerlotWest Virginia Supreme Court · 2001
- State v. BrocksmithCourt of Appeals of Utah · 1994
- Crosland v. StateUtah Supreme Court · 1993
- Katarzyna Brozynski, Law Offices of Cornel Walker PC, and Cornel Walker v. Jared Kerney and Sheila Kerney, Texas Court of Appeals, 10th District (Waco)2006
- State v. SomerlotWest Virginia Supreme Court · 2001
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.