22-4301.
Request for final disposition of detainer by prisoners; duties of official custodian; dismissal, when.
(a) Any inmate in the custody of the secretary of corrections may request final disposition of any untried indictment, information, motion to revoke probation or complaint pending against such person in this state. The request shall be in writing, addressed and delivered to the court in which the indictment, information, motion to revoke probation or complaint is pending, to the county attorney charged with the duty of prosecuting it and to the secretary of corrections. Such request shall set forth the place of imprisonment.
(b) The secretary shall promptly inform each inmate in writing of the source and nature of any untried indictment, information, motion to revoke probation or complaint against such inmate of which the secretary has knowledge or notice, and of such inmate's right to make a request for final disposition thereof.
(c) Failure of the secretary to inform an inmate, as required by this section, within one year after a detainer has been filed at the institution shall entitle such inmate to a final dismissal of the indictment, information, motion to revoke probation or complaint with prejudice.
History:
L. 1970, ch. 129, § 22-4301; L. 2013, ch. 32, § 1; L. 2016, ch. 32, § 1; July 1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
52
cases (
18 in the last 5 years), 1977–2026 · leading case:
State v. Burnett, 301 P.3d 698 (Kan. 2013).
State v. Burnett, 301 P.3d 698 (Kan. 2013).
· cites it 6× “He claims his statutory speedy trial rights were violated because he was not brought to trial within 180 days of his request to expedite his case under the Uniform Mandatory Disposition of Detainers Act (UMDDA), K.S.A. 22-4301 et seq. The UMDDA provides an intrastate process for…”
State v. Calderon, 661 P.2d 781 (Kan. 1983).
· cites it 6× “22-3402 (right to speedy trial), and K.S.A. 22-4301 et seq. (Uniform Mandatory Disposition of Detainers Act).”
State v. Griffin, 479 P.3d 937 (Kan. 2021).
· cites it 7× “, provides an intrastate procedure for persons incarcerated in Kansas penal or correctional institutions to request final disposition of other criminal charges pending within the state. It is a statutory right, not a constitutional one.”
State v. Angelo, 197 P.3d 337 (Kan. 2008).
· cites it 3× “In so holding, we noted: “The right of an inmate to a speedy trial who is confined in a penal or correctional institution in this state, or confined in a penal or correctional institution in another state, is governed solely by the detainer statutes — in the first instance, by…”
State v. Julian, 765 P.2d 1104 (Kan. 1988).
· cites it 5× “The Uniform Mandatory Disposition of Detainers Act, K.S.A. 22-4301 et seq., deals with intrastate detainers.”
State v. Stevenson, 478 P.3d 781 (Kan. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 2× “" The district court based its decision in part on the fact that Stevenson had failed to seek relief under the Uniform Mandatory Disposition of Detainers Act (UMDDA), K.S.A. 22-4301 et seq. This conclusion was erroneous because the UMDDA only allows those in the custody of the…”
State v. Clark, 563 P.2d 1028 (Kan. 1977).
· cites it 2× “The Uniform Mandatory Disposition of Detainers Act (hereinafter referred to as Act) provides that a prisoner incarcerated in this state shall promptly be notified in writing of any detainer lodged against him and shall be informed of his right to request a speedy disposition of…”
State v. Waldrup, 263 P.3d 867 (Kan. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 2× “The statutory right to a speedy trial of an inmate who is confined in a penal or correctional institution in this state excluding a federal penitentiary is governed by the Uniform Mandatoiy Disposition of Detainers Act (UMDDA), K.S.A. 22-4301 et seq. The statutory right to a…”
State v. Hall, 195 P.3d 220 (Kan. 2008).
“Shortly after KSIR received the detainer request, it notified Nicholson of the detainer. During Nicholson’s term of imprisonment at KSIR, he made no attempt to assert his right to dispose of the detainer pursuant to the Uniform Mandatory Disposition of Detainers Act, K.”
State v. Warren, 304 P.3d 1288 (Kan. 2013).
“*882 Warren appealed, claiming: (1) the district court erroneously concluded it could not even consider whether to grant a downward departure sentence to Warren based on the small amount of drugs he possessed, and (2) Warren’s speedy trial rights were violated because he was not…”
State v. Watson, 186 P.3d 812 (Kan. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 2× “Watson claims: (1) The district court violated his right to a speedy trial under the Uniform Mandatoiy Disposition of Detainers Act (UMDDA), K.S.A. 22-4301 et seq.; (2) the district court’s jury instructions on theft were clearly erroneous; (3) the district court erred in admit…”
People v. Campbell, 742 P.2d 302 (Colo. 1987).
“§§ 22-4401 to -4408 (1981) (IAD); Kan.Stat.Ann. §§ 22-4301 to -4308 (1981) (Uniform Act); Minn.”
— K.S.A. § 22-4301(a) — 14 cases
State v. Burnett, 301 P.3d 698 (Kan. 2013).
“He claims his statutory speedy trial rights were violated because he was not brought to trial within 180 days of his request to expedite his case under the Uniform Mandatory Disposition of Detainers Act (UMDDA), K.S.A. 22-4301 et seq. The UMDDA provides an intrastate process for…”
State v. Griffin, 479 P.3d 937 (Kan. 2021).
“, provides an intrastate procedure for persons incarcerated in Kansas penal or correctional institutions to request final disposition of other criminal charges pending within the state. It is a statutory right, not a constitutional one.”
— K.S.A. § 22-4301(b) — 6 cases
State v. Griffin, 479 P.3d 937 (Kan. 2021).
“, provides an intrastate procedure for persons incarcerated in Kansas penal or correctional institutions to request final disposition of other criminal charges pending within the state. It is a statutory right, not a constitutional one.”
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.