Netzley
Netzley v. Superior Court
Opinion
Opinion
No appearance by Respondent.
Michael A. Ramos, District Attorney, and Brent J. Schultze, Deputy District Attorney, for Real Party in Interest.
McKINSTER, J.
Petitioner, Phillip Netzley, moved to dismiss criminal charges pending against him because of an alleged violation of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD). (Pen.Code, [1] § 1389.) The trial court denied the motion to dismiss, and petitioner filed for a writ of mandate.
The issue presented in this case is whether petitioner was "unable to stand trial," within the meaning of the IAD, while he was serving a term of disciplinary segregation as the result of his repeated bad and violent acts in prison. We agree with the lower court's determination that the period of delay during which petitioner was in Oregon's Intensive Management Unit (IMU) rendered him "unable to stand trial" and, in turn, tolled the running of the 180-day statutory period from January 30 to July 28, 2005 (a total of 179 days). When petitioner moved to dismiss on November 4, 2005, the 180-day period had not yet expired, and he could still have been brought to a timely trial under the provisions of the IAD.