Hanson (Chayce) v. Warden ( 2014 )

 attorney general opposed the petition, arguing that there was not a
detainer lodged against appellant. In support, the attorney general
provided copies of email correspondence with authorities in King County,
Washington, as well as a letter sent to appellant from the prosecutor's
office in King County, Washington, indicating that they would not be
extraditing appellant and had not lodged a detainer against him. The
district court denied the petition.
Article III (a), (b) of the TAD provide that whenever "there is
pending . . . any untried indictment, information or complaint on the basis
of which a detainer has been lodged against [a] prisoner," a prisoner may
request in writing a final disposition of the pending charges. When the
request is in writing and is "given or sent by the prisoner to the warden,
commissioner of corrections or other official having custody of the
prisoner," the officer has a duty to "promptly forward it to together with
the certificate to the appropriate prosecuting official and court." NRS
178.620 (Art. III (b)).
The central issue in this case is whether a detainer has been
lodged so as to trigger the requirements of the TAD. This court has
adopted the definition of "detainer" as set forth in Feat v. Michigan, 507
U.S. 43, 44 (1993). A detainer is a written "request filed by a criminal
justice agency with the institution in which a prisoner is incarcerated,
asking that the prisoner be held for the agency, or that the agency be
advised when the prisoner's release is imminent." Theis v. State, 117 Nev.
744, 750, 753, 30 P.3d 1140, 1143-44, 1145 (2001). The record supports
the district court's finding that there was not a written request filed with
the Nevada Department of Corrections to hold appellant for the King
County Prosecutor's office in the State of Washington. Notably, the State
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
of Washington informed appellant by letter that there was not a detainer
and that he should present himself in Washington when he completed
serving his Nevada sentence. Although the email correspondence
indicates that a Nevada official inquired whether King County wanted a
Iniotify" to be posted so that King County would be informed when
appellant's release was imminent and a written request for a "notify hold"
could meet the definition of a detainer, there is no evidence that King
County responded in writing to the inquiry or that a notify hold was
posted. Under these circumstances, we conclude that the district court did
not abuse its discretion in denying the petition. Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
, C.J.
Gibbons
, J.
Saitta
cc: Hon. David B. Barker, District Judge
Chayce Arden Hanson
Attorney General/Las Vegas
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA 3
(0) 1947A cen4