Submitted: March 26, 2018
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss DENIED
Honorable Andrea L. Rocanelli, Judge.
the Court is a motion to dismiss filed by Defendant Travis
McNeal ("Defendant"). Defendant seeks dismissal on
the grounds that his prosecution is barred by the Uniform
Agreement on Detainers ("UAD"). The State opposes
Defendant's motion. Upon consideration of the facts,
arguments, and legal authority set forth by the parties;
statutory and decisional law; and the entire record in this
case, the Court hereby finds as follows:
State alleges that on February 25, 2012, Defendant robbed a
Dunkin Donuts in Newark, Delaware and a PNC Bank in
Wilmington, Delaware. On November 5, 2012, an indictment was
filed and a Rule 9 warrant was issued for Defendant's
Around this time, Defendant was also suspected of criminal
activity in Pennsylvania and Maryland, and was ultimately
apprehended in Pennsylvania. On November 8, 2012, Defendant
was sentenced to a period of incarceration in Pennsylvania.
After serving time in Pennsylvania, Defendant appeared in
Maryland to address his pending charges in that jurisdiction.
Defendant was sentenced to fifteen years for robbery in
While incarcerated in Maryland, Defendant attempted to make a
speedy trial request under the UAD to resolve the charges
pending against him in Delaware. On June 30, 2016, Defendant
mailed his speedy trial request under the UAD via certified
mail to "Superior Court State Attorney, 500 North King
Street, Wilmington, DE 19801." Defendant alleges that
this triggered a 180-day period in which the State of
Delaware was required bring him to trial on the charges
pending in Delaware. Defendant was not brought to trial
within 180 days of June 30, 2016.
November 2017, Defendant's Maryland sentence was reduced
to time-served, and he was released.
December 4, 2017, the Rule 9 warrant was returned in
Delaware. Defendant posted bail in the amount of $5, 000.00
secured, and he has not been incarcerated in this
jurisdiction. Trial was scheduled March 27, 2018, and then
rescheduled for April 3, 2018.
February 12, 2018, Defendant filed the motion to dismiss.
Defendant argues that his prosecution in Delaware is barred
by the UAD because the State failed to bring Defendant to
trial within 180 days of his filing a speedy trial request
under the UAD. The State contends that Defendant did not
follow the strict notice requirements of the UAD, and
therefore, that the 180-day period under the UAD was not
triggered. This is the Court's decision on
Defendant's motion to dismiss.
UAD is meant to simplify the difficulties that arise with
"securing the speedy trial of persons already
incarcerated" in one jurisdiction when they also have
charges pending in another jurisdiction. The Uniform
Agreement on Detainers provides in relevant part:
Whenever a person has entered upon a term of imprisonment in
a penal or correctional institution of a party state, and
whenever during the continuance of the term of imprisonment
there is pending in any other party state any untried
indictment, information or complaint on the basis of which a
detainer has been lodged against the prisoner, the prisoner
shall be brought to trial within 180 days after the prisoner
shall have caused to be delivered to the prosecuting officer
and the appropriate court of the prosecuting officer's
jurisdiction written notice of the place of imprisonment and
the request for a final disposition to be made of the
indictment, information or complaint; .. 
law requires that "the prisoner give actual notice to
the court and prosecutor of his request for a trial before
his right to a trial within 180 days
vests."Written notice is not effective under the
UAD until the notification ...