AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Defendant was involved in a legal matter that required his trial to commence within one hundred eighty days after his request for a final disposition under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD). He believed, and was informed by officials in Idaho, that he had made such a request on September 5, 2014. This belief was based on his discussions with prison officials in Idaho.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant (State): Argued that the Defendant did not trigger the statutory deadline required by the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD) for his trial to commence within one hundred eighty days after his request for a final disposition.
• Defendant-Appellee (Gregory MacKay): Testified that he had discussed a request for final disposition with prison officials in Idaho on September 5, 2014, implying that he had initiated the process to trigger the statutory deadline under the IAD.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant triggered the one hundred eighty-day deadline for his trial to commence under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD) by his actions and communications with prison officials in Idaho.

Disposition

• The district court’s order of dismissal was affirmed.

Reasons

• The Court, led by Judge Timothy L. Garcia with concurrence from Chief Judge Linda M. Vanzi and Judge Stephen G. French, affirmed the district court's dismissal based on the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD). The State's appeal contended that the Defendant did not trigger the statutory deadline for his trial to commence, a claim which was not supported by sufficient evidence or detailed description of evidence received by the district court. The State's failure to provide a comprehensive summary of the evidence or to clearly point out errors in the district court's findings resulted in the affirmation of the dismissal order. The decision was based on the Defendant's testimony regarding his request for final disposition, discussions with Idaho prison officials, and the lack of substantial evidence or detailed record from the State to counter the district court's findings (paras 1-7).