v. Medina

Citations

• 2019 COA 103

Syllabus

Medina pleaded guilty to second degree assault and was sentenced to four years in the custody of the Department of Corrections (DOC). Medina filed two motions requesting dismissal of his conviction under the Uniform Mandatory Disposition of Detainers Act (UMDDA). The district court construed both motions as a petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Crim. P. 35(c) and denied the motions. On appeal, Medina argued that the district court lacked jurisdiction to accept his guilty plea because he was not brought to trial within the statutorily required time period under the UMDDA. The UMDDA allows persons in DOC custody to request a final disposition of any untried indictment, information, or criminal complaint. The request must be in writing and delivered to the superintendent where the person is confined. The superintendent must send a registered copy to the court and prosecutor. Under the UMDDA, a court loses jurisdiction over a complaint if it is not brought to trial within 182 days after the receipt of the request by the court and the prosecuting official, or within such time as the court for good cause shown in open court may grant. Because these requirements are jurisdictional, the defect is not waived by a guilty plea. Medina contended that he properly submitted the request for disposition by providing it to his superintendent, but he did not contend that the district court and the prosecution ever received the request. Here, the record does not show that the court or prosecution ever received or were otherwise made aware of Medina's request, so the 182-day period was never triggered and the court never lacked jurisdiction to accept his guilty plea. Thus, the district court properly denied Medina's motions. Medina also contended that he delivered a proper request under the UMDDA to the DOC superintendent, so the charges against him should be dismissed. Medina did not properly raise this issue in the district court, and regardless of whether the superintende