State v. Shakur Carrasquillo, unpublished opinion, App. Div. Docket No. A-4497-06T4 (February 17, 2010) – Dismissal of indictment for violation of IAD affirmed. “After a thorough review of the State’s arguments, we decline the State’s request that we reconsider our earlier determination, … that the continuance issued to the State — which resulted in a lengthy relaxation of the 120-day IAD time limit — was improvidently granted and should therefore be disallowed.
Additionally, we reject the State’s argument that Judge Falcone erred when he concluded that the IAD time limit expired before defendant would have been released from confinement on his New York sentence…. [T]he judge’s decision on remand gave the State the benefit of a generous 123-day tolling period for the submission of briefs on defendant’s motion to suppress and for scheduling and conducting the motion hearing.
Even with the benefit of that 123-day tolling, the 120-day IAD time limit was violated…. [N]othing the State has presented alters the fact that the State, having transported defendant to New Jersey, was obligated to commence his trial within 120 days of his arrival, excluding the tolling periods, but did not do so. We also recognize that the charges upon which defendant was convicted at trial are extremely serious. For that reason, the State should have been especially careful to adhere to the requirements of N.J.S.A. 2A:159A-4(c). To the contrary, the first time the State initiated any discussion of possible trial dates was September 7, 2006, which was the return date of defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment. The IAD statute demands far more.” (Michael Confusione, Designated Counsel)