State v. Summers

653 S.W.3d 155

STATE of Missouri, Respondent,

v.Ronnie Dale SUMMERS, Appellant.

WD 84548

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

OPINION FILED: September 27, 2022

Eric S. Schmitt, Attorney General, and Richard A. Starnes, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, Attorneys for Respondent.

William J. Swift, Assistant Public Defender, Columbia, MO, Attorney for Appellant.

Before Division One: Janet Sutton, Presiding Judge, and Alok Ahuja and Karen King Mitchell, Judges

Karen King Mitchell, Judge

Ronnie Summers appeals, following a bench trial, his convictions of second-degree assault, § 565.052,¹ resisting arrest, § 575.150, and possession of a controlled substance, § 579.015, for which he was sentenced, as a persistent offender, to concurrent terms of ten years for assault and seven years for resisting arrest and a consecutive term of ten years for possession of a controlled substance for an aggregate sentence of twenty years’ imprisonment. Summers raises four points on appeal. In Points I and II, he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction of second-degree assault. In Point III, he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction of resisting arrest. And, in Point IV, he argues that the court erred in refusing to dismiss the charges due to alleged violations of both the Uniform Mandatory Disposition of Detainers Law (UMDDL) and the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial. Finding no error, we affirm.

Background

On February 6, 2020, Officer Andrew Maxwell of the Higginsville Police Department responded to a dispatch at Cypress and 22nd Street, where he observed Summers standing in the street, holding various items. Officer Maxwell, who was in uniform and driving a marked patrol vehicle, approached Summers on foot and explained why he was there. Summers was behaving in a way that suggested to Officer Maxwell that Summers might be under the influence of stimulants. Officer Maxwell knew that Summers was on parole at the time, so Officer Maxwell requested consent to search Summers's person, which Summers granted.

While searching Summers's pockets, Officer Maxwell discovered a small baggie that contained a crystal substance, which Officer Maxwell believed to be methamphetamine. Officer Maxwell returned the substance to Summers's pockets to free up his own hands in order to place Summers under arrest. Officer Maxwell advised Summers to turn around and said he was placing Summers under arrest for possession of a controlled substance. Officer Maxwell then felt Summers pulling away as if to flee; Officer Maxwell advised Summers not to run, but Summers pulled free of Officer Maxwell's grasp and fled south. At the time, Officer Maxwell had a hold of Summers's coat with his left hand, and the force from Summers pulling away caused Officer Maxwell to fall forward, strike his wrist on the ground, and break it.

Sergeant Chris Johnson also responded to the dispatch but arrived shortly after Officer Maxwell. Sergeant Johnson saw Officer Maxwell fall when Summers fled. Officer Maxwell stood back up and pursued Summers on foot, yelling for Summers to stop, and warning Summers that he would release his police dog. Summers eventually stopped running, lay on his back, and waited for Sergeant Johnson to handcuff him. Summers was taken into custody and charged, as a persistent offender, with second-degree assault, resisting arrest, and possession of a controlled substance.

Summers waived his right to a jury and was tried before the court on April 23, 2021. At the trial, the court received testimony from Officer Maxwell and Sergeant Johnson, as well as video footage from Officer Maxwell's body camera. Summers conceded guilt on the possession of a controlled substance count and conceded that Officer Maxwell's broken wrist constituted a serious physical injury. After reviewing the evidence, the court found Summers guilty on all counts.

At sentencing the State outlined Summers's extensive criminal history and sought an aggregate sentence of twenty-four years’ imprisonment. Summers's counsel requested a maximum of ten years’ imprisonment with all counts to run concurrently. The court sentenced Summers to concurrent terms of ten years’ imprisonment for second-degree assault and seven years’ imprisonment for resisting arrest, and a consecutive term of ten years’ imprisonment for possession of a controlled substance. Summers appeals.

Analysis

Summers raises four points on appeal. The first two points challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support his second-degree assault conviction; specifically, Summers argues that the evidence was insufficient to establish that his conduct was the proximate cause of Officer Maxwell's injury in that (1) the evidence did not show that Summers consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk that Officer Maxwell would fall while chasing Summers and (2) the evidence did not show that Summers's actions constituted a gross deviation from the standard of care a reasonable person would exercise in the situation. Summers's third point challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his resisting arrest conviction insofar as he claims the evidence did not support a finding that he used violence or physical force. And, in his final point, Summers argues that the court should have dismissed the charges due to alleged violations of both the UMDDL and the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial. For ease of analysis, we address his points out of order.

I. Summers was not entitled to dismissal of the charges under either the UMDDL or the Sixth Amendment.

"Whether a criminal case should be dismissed based on the UMDDL is a question of law [that] this court reviews de novo. " State v. James , 552 S.W.3d 590, 595 (Mo. App. W.D. 2018) (quoting State v. Brown , 377 S.W.3d 619, 621 (Mo. App. W.D. 2012) ). Likewise, "[w]hether a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial was violated is also a question of law, which we review de novo. " Id. (citing State v. Sisco , 458 S.W.3d 304, 312-13 (Mo. banc 2015) ).

A. Summers failed to properly invoke the protection of the UMDDL.

"The UMDDL provides for the prompt disposition of detainers based on untried state charges pending against a prisoner held within the state's correctional system." State v. Pugh , 357 S.W.3d 310, 313 (Mo. App. W.D. 2012) (quoting Burnes v. State , 92 S.W.3d 342, 345 (Mo. App. S.D. 2003) ); see §§ 217.450, 217.460. "The statutory protections of the inmate's right to a speedy trial by allowing dismissal of any charges not prosecuted within 180 days of the request for disposition are triggered by the lodging of the detainer." State v. James , 552 S.W.3d 590, 597 (Mo. App. W.D. 2018). A criminal defendant bears the "initial burden of proving the application of the UMDDL." State v. Lucas , 559 S.W.3d 434, 445 (Mo. App. W.D. 2018) ; see also State v. Merrick , 219 S.W.3d 281, 285 (Mo. App. S.D. 2007) (holding that defendant bore the burden of proving compliance with the mandatory procedures for invoking the protection of the UMDDL). Here, the State argues that Summers failed to invoke the protection of the UMDDL by failing to prove the existence of a detainer lodged against him.

"A detainer is ‘a request filed by a criminal justice agency with the institution in which a prisoner is incarcerated, asking the institution either to hold the prisoner for the agency or to notify the agency when release of the prisoner is imminent.’ " Pugh , 357 S.W.3d at 313 (quoting Burnes , 92 S.W.3d at 346 ). "The purpose of a detainer is to put prison officials on notice that the inmate is wanted to face pending charges in another jurisdiction upon the inmate's release from prison." Id. "[T]he mere knowledge by the DOC of pending charges against [an inmate, however, is] insufficient to trigger the UMDDL. Notice of the warrant, by itself, [does] not constitute a detainer." Greene v. State , 332 S.W.3d 239, 245 (Mo. App. W.D. 2010).

The record below establishes that Summers first filed a request for disposition of detainers under the UMDDL on April 2, 2020. But nothing in the record reflects that either an actual or a de facto detainer had been lodged against him at that time. Summers subsequently sought dismissal of the charges under the UMDDL on October 16, 2020, but the record was still silent as to the existence of any detainer. The prosecutor filed a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum on October 26, 2020, and again on both November 5, 2020, and November 13, 2020. But "a prosecutor's filing of a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum does not, standing alone, constitute the lodging of a detainer sufficient to trigger the provisions of the UMDDL." State v. Branstetter , 107 S.W.3d 465, 477 (Mo. App. W.D. 2003).²

In short, Summers failed to properly invoke the protection of the UMDDL below. Thus, the trial court did not err in refusing to dismiss the charges on that basis. But, even if Summers had satisfied his burden, the UMDDL does not mandate dismissal unless the offender also establishes that his "constitutional right to a speedy trial has been denied."

James , 552 S.W.3d at 597 (quoting State v. McKay , 411 S.W.3d 295, 302 (Mo. App. E.D. 2013) ). See also § 217.460, RSMo ("If the indictment, information or complaint is not brought to trial within the period and if the court finds that the offender's constitutional right to a speedy trial has been denied , no court of this state shall have jurisdiction of such indictment, information or complaint ...." (emphasis added)).

B. Summers failed to establish a Sixth Amendment speedy trial violation.

"To assess whether the constitutional right to a speedy trial has been respected or denied, the Court must balance four factors: (1) the length of delay; (2) the reason for the delay; (3) the defendant's assertion of his right; and (4) prejudice to the defendant." State ex rel. McKee v. Riley , 240 S.W.3d 720, 729 (Mo. banc 2007). None of these factors are "either...