State v. Wagner ( 1999 )

HARRIS, Justice

(dissenting).

I respectfully dissent because I cannot believe the legislature intended to .place Iowa’s prisoners beyond Iowa’s jurisdiction while the prisoners are being transferred elsewhere under the interstate corrections compact, Iowa Code chapter 913 (1995). It is not surprising that Texas lost interest in prosecuting Iowa’s prisoner for escaping there while being transferred to New Mexico. There would be some fear of a conviction, resulting in the transfer of confinement expenses from Iowa to Texas. Because Wagner’s escape was clearly more an affront to Iowa authority than to Texas authority, dismissal of any charges in Texas would seem, to put it mildly, highly likely. The practical effect of the majority holding will be to greatly elevate attractiveness of escape for prisoners in transit. The holding will wreak havoc on activities being conducted in accordance with the compact.

This unfortunate holding strikes me as unnecessary. The. majority does not suggest that Iowa is without power to retain jurisdiction over its prisoners while they are in transit elsewhere under the compact. The majority only holds that Iowa has not done so. Although the majority obviously is not impressed by them, I am convinced- Iowa Code chapter 913 is replete with signals the legislature intended for Iowa, as “sending” state, to retain jurisdiction over prisoners in transit.

The signals are not surprising. -The compact came about because states wanted to move their prisoners from state to state in order to share prison facilities for the mutual benefit of prisoners and the public. See Iowa Code § 913.2 (Art. I). The compact makes this effort possible by accommodating the impediment otherwise existing by virtue of each state’s sovereignty within its borders.

But an effort was made, clearly expressed in Code chapter 913, to retain jurisdiction' over the prisoners, as a “sending state,” after transfer beyond our borders. For example, in article IV (unnumbered paragraph six) is a provision that any hearings to which the prisoner is entitled by reason of the laws of the sending state, may be held by the authorities of the sending state. Only with permission of the sending state can such a hearing be conducted by the authorities in the receiving state but if this happens “the officials of the receiving state shall act solely as agents of the sending state and no final determination shall be made in any matter except by the appropriate officials of the sending state.” ' '

In article IV (unnumbered paragraph seven) it is pointed out that a transferred prisoner cannot be released except within the territory of the sending state — or someplace designated by the sending state.

In the first unnumbered paragraph of article V it is provided that

[a]ny decision of the sending state in respect of any matter over which it retains jurisdiction pursuant to this compact shall be conclusive upon and not reviewable within the receiving state....

Finally, the second unnumbered paragraph of article V provides that

[a]n inmate who escapes from an institution in which the inmate is confined pursuant to this compact shall be deemed a fugitive from the sending state and from the state in which the institution is situated. In the case of an escape to a jurisdiction other than the sending or receiving state, the responsibility for the institution of extradition or rendition proceedings shall be that of the sending state, but nothing contained herein shall be construed to prevent or affect the activities of the officers and agencies of any jurisdiction directed toward the apprehension and return of an escapee.

The thrust of Code chapter 913, as illustrated by the foregoing examples, is to preserve Iowa dominion over transit prisoners while sending them to confinement at prison facilities elsewhere. The legislature took pains to make this retention clear. I cannot believe the legislature intended to exempt transit prisoners from Iowa Code section 719.4(1) making it a crime to escape.

Because I think Iowa had jurisdiction, and because I would reject Wagner’s other challenges not reached by the majority, I would affirm.

McGIVERIN, C.J., and LARSON and CARTER, JJ., join this dissent.