Netzley
Netzley v. Superior Court
Opinion
Opinion
McKINSTER, J.
Petitioner, Phillip Netzley, moved to dismiss criminal charges pending against him because of an alleged violation of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (LAD). (Pen. Code, § 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, as determined by the court having jurisdiction of the matter,” within the meaning of the LAD, while he was serving a term of disciplinary segregation ás the result of his repeated misconduct and violence 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 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.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On or about December 20, 2003, petitioner allegedly committed several criminal acts in San Bernardino,…