from the District Court of the Second Judicial District,
State of Idaho, Nez Perce County. Hon. Jay P. Gaskill,
denying motion to dismiss, affirmed in part and case
D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Sally J.
Cooley, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for
appellant. Sally J. Cooley argued.
Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Russell J. Spencer,
Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. Russell J.
Richardson appeals from the district court's judgment of
conviction for three counts of delivery of a controlled
substance and order of restitution. He argues: (1) his speedy
trial rights under the United States and the Idaho
Constitutions were violated; (2) his speedy trial rights
under Idaho Code Sections 19-106 and 19-3501 were violated;
(3) the State failed to bring him to trial within 180 days as
required by the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD); (4)
the district court violated Idaho Rule of Evidence 404(b) by
admitting a statement from an officer at trial; and (5) part
of the district court's order of restitution was not
supported by substantial and competent evidence. The district
court's order denying Richardson's motion to dismiss
is affirmed in part, and the case is remanded.
AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
September of 2011, Richardson sold a confidential informant
methamphetamine in three controlled buys. The confidential
informant paid Richardson in four installments. On January 4,
2012, Richardson was arrested and charged with three counts
of delivery of methamphetamine in a criminal complaint; the
State subsequently filed an information on February 22, 2012.
Richardson pleaded not guilty to the charges and his trial
was set for June 4, 2012. Following a hearing, the district
court granted the State's motion for a continuance,
resetting the trial for August 20, 2012. The district court
subsequently vacated that trial date to permit the district
court sufficient time to rule on various motions. The
district court denied one of the motions--the State's
motion to admit the transcript of the deceased confidential
informant's preliminary hearing testimony. The State
filed a permissive appeal and the Idaho Supreme Court
reversed the district court's order. State v.
Richardson, 156 Idaho 524, 328 P.3d 504 (2014). The
remittitur was issued July 16, 2014. Id.
status hearing on July 24, 2014, the district court was
informed that Richardson was in federal custody for an
offense committed in Washington. On May 14, 2014, in the
federal case, Richardson was sentenced to a five-year term of
imprisonment, which he spent mostly in Indiana. As a result,
Richardson did not appear at the July 24, 2014, hearing
before the district court, and the court issued a bench
warrant for Richardson's arrest. At that hearing, the
State represented that it was defense counsel's
responsibility to initiate Richardson's transport to
Idaho to stand trial.
was served with the warrant on January 6, 2015. On February
2, 2015, the district court and the State received a pro se
"Demand for Speedy Trial and Final Disposition, "
sent by Richardson while confined in Indiana. The demand was
made pursuant to the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the
United States Constitution, the Idaho Constitution, and the
Idaho speedy trial statutes. The documents attached to the
demand provided details concerning Richardson's federal
case and sentence.
district court held several status hearings to assess
Richardson's return to Idaho to face his Idaho charges.
During the course of the next six months, the State made
various representations to the district court that it was
arranging for Richardson's transport to Idaho.
Ultimately, the State formally lodged a detainer against
25, 2015, the State told the district court that federal
correctional officials had received all necessary
documentation for Richardson's transport. On July 22,
2015, the district court and the State received documents
from the correctional officials providing written notice of
Richardson's incarceration in Indiana, a request for the
final disposition of his Idaho charges, and a certificate.
The certificate stated the terms of Richardson's federal
sentence, his time served, the amount of good time he had
earned, and his parole eligibility. Also included were
necessary forms for the State to complete and return to the
federal correctional officials. On July 30, 2015, the State
informed the district court that it had not sent a required
form to the federal correctional officials to secure
Richardson's return, but that it was working on it.
filed a pro se motion to dismiss and for final disposition on
August 14, 2015, arguing that his constitutional and
statutory speedy trial rights had been violated and the State
had not brought him to trial within the 180-day period
required by the IAD. A hearing was held and the district
court permitted defense counsel to brief Richardson's pro
se motion. The district court set a new trial date of
December 7, 2015. On October 2, 2015, the district court
denied Richardson's motion to dismiss. The district court
found that the State had not violated the 180-day IAD period
because Richardson's February 2, 2015, speedy trial
demand did not trigger the IAD timeline. Thus, according to
the district court, the IAD was not triggered until June 24,
2015, when the State filed a detainer ...