Arapahoe County District Court No. 15CR3031 Honorable Natalie
T. Chase, Judge.
J. Weiser, Attorney General, Brock J. Swanson, Assistant
Attorney General, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellee
N. Jorfald, Alternate Defense Counsel, Lakewood, Colorado,
1 In this statutory interpretation case, we are asked to
decide whether the right to a speedy disposition guaranteed
by the Uniform Mandatory Disposition of Detainers Act
(UMDDA), §§ 16-14-101 to -108, C.R.S. 2018, can be
waived by counsel or whether a defendant must personally
waive this right. We hold that this statutory right may be
waived by counsel and that counsel may also waive the
required statutory advisement of rights. We further hold that
when the defendant is present for counsel's waiver and
does not voice an objection to it, he cannot later complain
that his UMDDA rights were violated.
2 Defendant, Joshua Theodore Yakas, appeals the trial
court's order denying his motion to dismiss his criminal
case for violation of the UMDDA. We affirm.
3 In October 2015, the police arrested Mr. Yakas for
violating parole in an unrelated case. While incarcerated,
the state charged him, on November 3, 2015, with three counts
of enticement of a child, three counts of attempted
inducement of child prostitution, three counts of attempted
sexual assault on a child, three counts of indecent exposure
- (third or subsequent offense), and habitual criminality.
Mr. Yakas appeared with court-appointed counsel at his first
appearance on November 9, 2015. After waiving his right to a
speedy preliminary hearing twice, Mr. Yakas proceeded to a
preliminary hearing on January 13, 2016. The court found
probable cause and bound the case over for arraignment on
February 19, 2016. On February 19, the parties agreed to
continue arraignment to April 29, 2016.
4 On February 29, 2016, Mr. Yakas filed a pro se
"Petition for Speedy Disposition Under [the
UMDDA]." As relevant here, paragraph four of the pro se
4. The defendant, does not waive any rights of limits set
forth under or in this act. If, at any time, the defendant
chooses to waive any of these, it shall be himself, not
through council [sic], by explicitly stating, in writing for
the court or in open court, that he, knowingly,
intentionally, and voluntarily waives his right under this
5 Upon receiving the petition, the court rescheduled
arraignment for March 25, 2016. As well, on March 17, 2016,
counsel for Mr. Yakas sent the following email to the court
and the district attorney:
I just wanted to let everyone know that Mr. Yakas is going to
be withdrawing the detainer and we will be asking that the
April 29 arraignment date remain. We're fine with Mr.
Yakas being brought in on 3/25 to do that on the record.
Additionally, Mr. Yakas has been held at the Arapahoe County
Jail, so unless he is going to be moved, we do not need a
6 When Mr. Yakas refused to appear on March 25, defense
counsel explained that Mr. Yakas was "confused about the
court date" and asked that the matter be reset for March
31, 2016, "because he's going to withdraw that
7 Mr. Yakas appeared with counsel on March 31. The trial
court asked whether "[defendant] was going to withdraw
th[e] request [for speedy disposition] and . . . wanted to
keep the arraignment date that we currently had set of April
29th." Counsel responded, "That is correct."
The court then asked, "Do you wish any further
advisement on the record with respect to Mr. Yakas's
withdrawal of request for speedy detainer?" Both defense
counsel and the district attorney responded, "No."
Mr. Yakas remained silent. The trial court then found that
the request for speedy disposition had been withdrawn and
continued the matter to the April arraignment date.
8 After several continued arraignments, made at the
defense's request, Mr. Yakas entered a not guilty plea on
August 1, 2016. But the parties eventually reached a
disposition, and on December 15, 2016, Mr. Yakas pleaded
guilty to several counts in exchange for the dismissal of the
remaining counts and a stipulated sentence of twenty years in
the custody of the Department of Corrections (DOC). The court
accepted Mr. Yakas's guilty pleas and sentenced him
9 Around the time he pleaded guilty, Mr. Yakas filed a pro se
motion to dismiss his case for violation of the UMDDA. The
motion asserted, in part, that counsel's withdrawal of
the UMDDA petition on March 31 was "against his
request" and constituted an invalid waiver of his
rights, thereby depriving the court of jurisdiction to accept
his guilty pleas. Mr. Yakas did not mention this pro se
motion at the providency hearing, and nothing in the record
shows that the court or counsel knew of its existence when
Mr. Yakas pleaded guilty.
10 Following the providency hearing on December 15, the trial
court issued an order requesting clarification concerning
whether the motion to dismiss should be ruled on in light of
the guilty pleas. After receiving no response, the trial
court denied the motion to dismiss as moot, on December 21,
Counsel's Withdrawal of the UMDDA Petition ...