 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1
.
SUPREMECOURTDOCKET
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
AMICUS CURIAE PAUPERIS ALABAMA ESQUIRE ANDALUSIA SERVE COUNSEL RESPONDENT COURT II-C II-B STEVENS KENNEDY SOUTER GINSBURG MICHAEL BOZEMAN UNITED STATES NATIONAL ASSOCIATION EXTRADITION OFFICIALS |
No. 00-492 Status: DECIDED
Title: Alabama, Petitioner
v.
Michael Herman Bozeman
Docketed: Lower Ct: Supreme Court of Alabama
October 2, 2000 (1971759)
~~Date~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sep 28 2000 Petition for writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 1, 2000)
Nov 1 2000 Brief of respondent Michael H. Bozeman in opposition filed.
Nov 15 2000 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 1, 2000
Dec 4 2000 REDISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 8, 2000
Dec 11 2000 Petition GRANTED. limited to Question 1 presented by the petition.
SET FOR ARGUMENT April 17, 2001.
********************************************************
Dec 27 2000 Motion of respondent for leave to proceed further herein in forma
pauperis filed.
Dec 27 2000 Motion of respondent for appointment of counsel filed.
Jan 10 2001 Motions DISTRIBUTED. February 16, 2001 (page 4)
Jan 25 2001 Brief amicus curiae of United States filed.
Jan 25 2001 Joint appendix filed.
Jan 25 2001 Brief of petitioner Alabama filed.
Jan 25 2001 Brief amicus curiae of National Association of Extradition Officials
filed.
Feb 20 2001 Motion of respondent for leave to proceed further herein in forma
pauperis
GRANTED.
Feb 20 2001 Motion for appointment of counsel GRANTED and it is ordered that
Mark John Christensen, Esquire, of Andalusia, Alabama, is
appointed to serve as counsel for the respondent in this case.
Feb 22 2001 CIRCULATED.
Feb 27 2001 Record filed.
Feb 27 2001 Brief of respondent Michael H. Bozeman filed.
Mar 6 2001 Record filed.
Mar 9 2001 Motion of the Acting Solicitor General for leave to participate in
oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.
Mar 23 2001 Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral
argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument DISTRIBUTED.
SNIPPETS:
|
|
3
.
PETITIONERSBRIEF
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
COURT BOZEMAN VIOLATION ALABAMA FEDERAL CUSTODY CHARGES PURPOSES DETAINERS HARMLESS ERROR INTERSTATE AGREEMENT IAD PRISONER HARMLESS ERROR RULE SUPREME COURT TECHNICAL VIOLATION ARRAIGNMENT JURISDICTION CONVICTIONS INDICTMENT COVINGTON COUNTY DISPOSITION PENDING CHARGES CONSTITUTIONAL ERRORS FEDERAL AUTHORITIES CERTIORARI PROVISIONS UNDERLYING SHOOTING CHARGES HARMLESS ERROR ANALYSIS |
No. 00-492
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
------- -------
STATE OF ALABAMA,
Petitioner,
v.
MICHAEL HERMAN BOZEMAN,
Respondent.
------- -------
On Writ of Certiorari to the
Supreme Court of Alabama
------- -------
BRIEF FOR PETITIONER
------- -------
BILL PRYOR
Attorney General of Alabama
SANDRA JEAN STEWART*
Assistant Attorney General
Counsel of Record*
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
STATE OF ALABAMA
11 South Union Street
Montgomery, AL 36130-0152
(334) 242-7300
i
QUESTION PRESENTED
Does transfer of federal custody to state custody for
one day for purposes of arraignment, and transfer
back to federal custody before the disposition of
outstanding charges, a technical violation of the
Interstate Agreement on Detainers, require dismissal
of pending charges, even when there is no harm to the
prisoner either alleged or demonstrated?
ii
SNIPPETS:
|
|
4
.
AMICUSUNITEDSTATES
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
PRISONER IAD CUSTODY AGREEMENT CHARGES UNITED STATES DETAINERS PURPOSES ALABAMA ARRAIGNMENT PARTY DISMISSAL-DURING SUPREME COURT INTERSTATE AGREEMENT REHABILITATION PROGRAMS RESPONDENT INDICTMENT JURISDICTION HARMLESS ERROR CRIMINALS COMPLAINT CONSTRUCTION COVINGTON COUNTY VIOLATION PRINCIPLE INTERRUPTION ACTING ASSISTANT ATTORNEY PREJUDICE TEMPORARY CUSTODY |
No. 00-492
In the Supreme Court of the United States
STATE OF ALABAMA, PETITIONER
v.
MICHAEL HERMAN BOZEMAN
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES
AS AMICUS CURIAE SUPPORTING PETITIONER
BARBARA D. UNDERWOOD
Acting Solicitor General
Counsel of Record
JOHN C. KEENEY
Acting Assistant Attorney
General
MICHAEL R. DREEBEN
Deputy Solicitor General
JEFFREY A. LAMKEN
Assistant to the Solicitor
General
Department of Justice
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001
(202) 514-2217
QUESTION PRESENTED
Whether a one-day transfer of a federal prisoner to state custody for purposes of arraignment,
without completing the trial on the state charges, violates Article IV(e) of the Interstate
Agreement on Detainers and requires dismissal of the state charges.
In the Supreme Court of the United States
STATE OF ALABAMA, PETITIONER
v.
MICHAEL HERMAN BOZEMAN
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
SNIPPETS:
|
|
6
.
ORAL ARGUMENTS
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
COURT ALABAMA PRISONER UNITED STATES PURPOSES HARMLESS ERROR SANDRA JEAN STEWART STATUTE AGREEMENT ESQ ACT DETAINER BOZEMAN MINIMIS PROVISION WAIVER IAD VIOLATION INDICTMENT PREJUDICE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT REHABILITATION LANGUAGE PROSECUTOR DEFENDANT LEGISLATION INTERRUPTION ARRAIGNMENT JEFFREY |
1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
3 STATE OF ALABAMA, :
4 Petitioner, :
5 v. : No. 00-492
6 MICHAEL HERMAN BOZEMAN. :
7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
8 Washington, D.C.
9 Tuesday, April 17, 2001
10 The above-entitled matter came on for oral
11 argument before the Supreme Court of the United States at
12 11:07 a.m.
13 APPEARANCES:
14 SANDRA JEAN STEWART, ESQ., Assistant Attorney General,
15 Montgomery, Alabama; on behalf of the Petitioner.
16 JEFFREY A. LAMKEN, ESQ., Assistant to the Solicitor
17 General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.;
18 on behalf of the United States, as amicus curiae,
19 supporting Petitioner.
20 MARK JOHN CHRISTENSEN, ESQ., Andalusia, Alabama; on
21 behalf of the Respondent.
22
23
24
SNIPPETS:
|
|
7
.
OPINION
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
AGREEMENT BOZEMAN UNITED STATES OPINION ALABAMA DETAINERS PRISONER SUPREME COURT PURPOSES RECEIVING STATE REHABILITATION INTERSTATE AGREEMENT VIOLATION STATE CHARGES FEDERAL PRISON FINISHED SERVING IMPRISONMENT SENDING STATE INTERRUPTION CERTIORARI LEGAL ORDER REHABILITATION PROGRAMS PROVISION PREJUDICE LOCAL COURT COMPLAINT CONNECTION UNIFORM PROCEDURES EXECUTING |
(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2000 1
Syllabus
NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is
being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.
The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been
prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus
ALABAMA v. BOZEMAN
CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
No. 00492. Argued April 17, 2001- Decided June 11, 2001
The Interstate Agreement on Detainers (Agreement) creates uniform
procedures for lodging and executing a detainer, i.e., a legal order
that requires a State to hold a currently imprisoned individual when
he has finished serving his sentence so that he may be tried by a dif-
ferent State for a different crime. As relevant here, the Agreement
provides that a State that obtains a prisoner for purposes of trial
must try him within 120 days of his arrival, Art. IV(c), and if it re-
turns him to his "original place of imprisonment" prior to that trial,
charges "shall" be dismissed with prejudice, Art. IV(e). While re-
spondent Bozeman was serving a federal prison sentence in Florida,
the Covington County, Alabama, district attorney sought temporary
custody of Bozeman to arraign him on firearms charges and to ap-
point counsel. When taken to Covington County, Bozeman spent the
night in the county jail, appeared in local court the next morning, ob-
tained local counsel, and was returned to federal prison that evening.
About one month later, he was brought back to the county for trial.
Bozeman's counsel moved to dismiss the state charges on the ground
that, because Bozeman had been "returned to the original place of
imprisonment" (namely, the federal prison) "prior to" "trial" on state
charges being "had," in violation of Article IV(e), the local court had
to dismiss the charges with prejudice in light of Art. IV(e)'s command
as to remedy. Bozeman was convicted, and an appeals court af-
firmed. The State Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Agree-
ment's literal language controlled and required dismissal of the state
charges.
Held: The literal language of Article IV(e) bars any further criminal
proceedings when a defendant is returned to the original place of im-
prisonment before trial. Pp. 510.
(a) Alabama claims that Article IV(e)'s basic purpose is to prevent
SNIPPETS:
|
|
8
.
ALABAMA SUPREMECOURTOPINION
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
IAD BOZEMAN CHARGES TRIAL COURT TECHNICAL VIOLATION CRIMINAL APPEALS CIRCUIT MOTION DISMISS DETAINERS SUPREME COURT COVINGTON CIRCUIT COURT INTERSTATE UNITED STATES CERTIORARI AGREEMENT SHOOTING CHARGES MICHAEL HERMAN BOZEMAN CONVICTIONS FEDERAL CUSTODY DISCHARGING INDICTMENT INTERPRETATION CONSTRUCTION INTERSTATE COMPACT REHABILITATION UNOCCUPIED VEHICLE PROVISION UNPUBLISHED MEMORANDUM |
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
OCTOBER TERM, 1999-2000
1971759
Ex parte Michael Herman Bozeman
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
(In re: Michael Herman Bozeman a/k/a Sonny Bozeman
v.
State of Alabama)
(Covington Circuit Court, CC-97-16;
Court of Criminal Appeals, CR-96-1611)
PER CURIAM.
Michael Herman Bozeman was convicted in the Covington Circuit Court for two counts of
discharging a firearm into an occupied dwelling, two counts of discharging a firearm into an
unoccupied vehicle, and one count of discharging a firearm into an unoccupied dwelling.
Bozeman argued that the State tried him on these charges in violation of art. IV(e) -- the "anti-
shuttling" provision -- of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers ("IAD"). The trial court rejected
Bozeman's argument, and denied his motion to dismiss. The Court of Criminal Appeals, on May
8, 1998, affirmed Bozeman's convictions, by an unpublished memorandum, holding that the
State's technical violation of the IAD did not require the dismissal of the charges against
Bozeman. Bozeman v. State (No. CR-96-1611), 738 So. 2d 934 (Ala. Crim. App. 1998) (table).
On certiorari review, we reverse and remand.
SNIPPETS:
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
