Sec. 2. (a) When an indictment or information is
pending against a defendant confined in this state under a judgment or
court order, the court with jurisdiction over the pending criminal action
shall, after application by the prosecuting attorney, order that the
defendant be produced before the court for prosecution. The defendant
shall not be entitled to release pending trial on the indictment or
information. The court may order that the defendant be surrendered to
the sheriff of the county in which the court issuing the order is located.
The court may order the sheriff to convey the defendant from the
institution and commit the defendant to the jail or to another place of
custody specified in the order. If the proceeding is delayed, the court
may order the defendant returned temporarily to the institution until the
presence of the defendant before the court is required.
(b) When an indictment or information is pending against a
defendant:
(1) confined in an institution within this state pending trial for
another offense; or
(2) who has been released by order of another court pending trial
before that court for another offense;
the court shall, upon motion of the prosecuting attorney, issue a warrant
of detainer to the court before which the other prosecution is pending.
The court to which the order of detainer is issued, shall, upon
termination of the proceedings before the court, deliver custody of the
defendant to the sheriff of the county in which the court issuing the
warrant is situated. Upon delivery, the court shall return the warrant to
the court of issuance showing such fact. A duplicate copy of the return
shall be served upon the prosecuting attorney who requested the
issuance of the warrant.
As added by Acts 1981, P.L.298, SEC.2.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
2
cases, 1997–2020 · leading case:
State v. Hornsby, 2020-Ohio-1526, 153 N.E.3d 960.
State v. Hornsby, 2020-Ohio-1526, 153 N.E.3d 960.
· cites it 11× “Citing Ind.Code 35-33-10-2 and 35-33-10-3, Hornsby requested “a final disposition on the -3- indictment/information or charges that [were] pending against him” in the instant case, or in the alternative, that the indictment “be dismissed and the detainer [be] removed with…”
Smith v. State, 686 N.E.2d 1264 (Ind. 1997).
· cites it 4× “A few days before the sentencing hearing, Smith’s counsel moved to transfer Smith to the Sullivan County jail, pursuant to Indiana Code § 35-33-10-2, and moved for a competency hearing.”
Ind. Code § 35-33-10-2(a): 2 cases
Smith v. State, 686 N.E.2d 1264 (Ind. 1997).
“A few days before the sentencing hearing, Smith’s counsel moved to transfer Smith to the Sullivan County jail, pursuant to Indiana Code § 35-33-10-2, and moved for a competency hearing.”
State v. Hornsby, 2020-Ohio-1526, 153 N.E.3d 960.
“Citing Ind.Code 35-33-10-2 and 35-33-10-3, Hornsby requested “a final disposition on the -3- indictment/information or charges that [were] pending against him” in the instant case, or in the alternative, that the indictment “be dismissed and the detainer [be] removed with…”
Ind. Code § 35-33-10-2(b): 1 case
State v. Hornsby, 2020-Ohio-1526, 153 N.E.3d 960.
“Citing Ind.Code 35-33-10-2 and 35-33-10-3, Hornsby requested “a final disposition on the -3- indictment/information or charges that [were] pending against him” in the instant case, or in the alternative, that the indictment “be dismissed and the detainer [be] removed with…”
Ind. Code § 35-33-10-2(b)(2): 1 case
State v. Hornsby, 2020-Ohio-1526, 153 N.E.3d 960.
“Citing Ind.Code 35-33-10-2 and 35-33-10-3, Hornsby requested “a final disposition on the -3- indictment/information or charges that [were] pending against him” in the instant case, or in the alternative, that the indictment “be dismissed and the detainer [be] removed with…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.