United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Richard Creatura United States Magistrate Judge
District Court has referred this petition for a writ of
habeas corpus to United States Magistrate Judge J. Richard
Creatura. The Court's authority for the referral is 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B), and local Magistrate
Judge Rules MJR3 and MJR4. Petitioner John Anthony Lewis
filed the petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
is a California prisoner challenging future incarceration in
Washington based on a Washington conviction. He alleges that
his rights were violated when he did not receive a final
disposition for his Washington convictions within 180 days of
requesting it under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers
(“IAD”), 18 U.S.C. § 2 and RCW
9.100.010. However, petitioner was convicted on a
guilty plea that explicitly waived his right to speedy trial.
Further, the IAD allows for extensions beyond the 180 days
when the trial court finds good cause, and the trial court
did so here. Therefore, petitioner's habeas petition is
without merit and the Court recommends that his habeas
petition be denied.
CLAIMS IN THIS HABEAS PETITION
Petitioner was not provided a speedy trial under the IAD,
codified in Washington under RCW 9.100.010.
Petitioner was brought to trial outside the 180 days provided
for under the IAD, rendering his conviction out of Lewis
Petitioner was denied his right to appeal from the Lewis
FOR CUSTODY AND FACTS
was convicted of a crime in California and is currently
serving his sentence there in the Correctional Training
Facility. While incarcerated in California, he was charged
with several crimes in Lewis County, Washington, and
ultimately pled guilty to one count of first-degree theft,
one count of second-degree identity theft, and bail- jumping.
Dkt. 18, Ex. 21. He challenges his future incarceration for
the Washington crimes.
was originally charged in Lewis County with theft in the
first degree, trafficking of stolen property, and possession
of a controlled substance. Dkt. 18, Ex. 2. The state later
amended the charge to include two counts of identity theft in
the second degree and bail jumping. Id., Ex. 6. At
this time, petitioner was serving a sentence in California
for a California crime. Id., Ex. 1. The state
therefore began proceedings under the IAD to bring petitioner
temporarily to Washington to stand trial. See id.,
being notified he would be temporarily taken to Washington,
petitioner filed an IAD form invoking his right to have the
final disposition of the case determined within 180 days
after receipt of the form by the prosecutor and trial court.
Id., Ex. 7 at 3. Petitioner signed this form on
February 4, 2015, and the state received it on February 18,
2015. Id., Ex. 8 at 2. However, in July of 2015, the
state filed a motion to extend the deadline, explaining that
the prosecutor was having difficulty contacting the
California Department of Correction, that the deadline was
fast approaching, and that the California officials had moved
petitioner to a different prison, requiring the filing of
amended paperwork. Id., Ex. 8. The trial court found
California had not acted in good faith, made a finding of
good cause for the extension, and granted an extension to
November 15, 2015. Id., Ex. 9. Petitioner was
subsequently transported to Washington on October 13, 2015.
Id., Ex. 11.
counsel then filed a motion to dismiss or, in the
alternative, grant an extension, stating that he required
additional time to familiarize himself with the case and to
effectively represent his client. Id., Ex. 12. The
Court again found good cause and granted an extension to
January 31, 2016. Id., Ex. 14. The state later
requested a final extension due to the unavailability of
material witnesses. Id., Ex. 19. Again, the Court
found good cause and granted the extension to April 13, 2016.
Id., Ex. 20.
subsequently pled guilty to theft in the first degree, one
count of identity theft in the second degree, and bail
jumping. Id., Ex. 21. His guilty plea recitation
included an explicit waiver of his right to a speedy trial.
Id. at 2. The Court entered an exceptional sentence,
taking into account the fact that petitioner was already
serving time in California, and sentenced petitioner to 24
months for each offense to be served concurrently after the
completion of his California imprisonment. Id., Ex.
22. Petitioner was then returned to California where he
remains in custody. Id., Ex. 23