976.06 Agreement on detainers; additional procedure. Following receipt of the officer's written request as provided in s. 976.05 (4) (a), the prisoner shall forthwith be taken before a judge of a court of record of this state, who shall inform the prisoner of the request for temporary custody or availability, the crime with which charged and that the prisoner has the right to petition the governor to deny the request, to contest the request and to demand and procure legal counsel. If the prisoner or the prisoner's counsel shall state that the prisoner or the prisoner and counsel desire to test the legality of granting temporary custody or availability, the judge shall set a date for hearing which shall be not later than the expiration of the 30-day period established by s. 976.05 (4) (a). If a hearing is set, notice of the hearing shall be given to the appropriate officer of the state requesting temporary custody or availability and to the authorities having custody of the prisoner in this state. The scope of any hearing or ruling under this section shall be confined to the request for temporary custody or availability, and to the identification of the person sought by the requesting state, but shall not encompass the guilt or innocence of the prisoner as to the crime charged by the requesting state.
History: 1975 c. 158, 199; 1981 c. 390.
NOTE: See drafting file in Legislative Reference Bureau for Legislative Council Note to original bill. [Bill 263-A]
The state's failure to hold a hearing within the 30-day period required discharge of the prisoner from a detainer. State v. Sykes, 91 Wis. 2d 436, 283 N.W.2d 446 (Ct. App. 1979).
Failure to meet the 30-day time limit requires the commencement of a new proceeding in order to obtain temporary custody over the subject of the petition. State ex rel. Kerr v. McCaughtry, 183 Wis. 2d 54, 515 N.W.2d 276 (Ct. App. 1994).
A defendant is prohibited from raising a constitutional issue on an s. 974.06 motion if the claim could have been raised in a previously filed s. 974.02 motion or a direct appeal. State v. Escalera-Naranjo, 185 Wis. 2d 169, 517 N.W.2d 157 (1994).
Copyright ©2024 LegalFix. All rights reserved. LegalFix is not a law firm, is not licensed to practice law, and does not provide legal advice, services, or representation. The information on this website is an overview of the legal plans you can purchase—or that may be provided by your employer as an employee benefit or by your credit union or other membership group as a membership benefit.
LegalFix provides its members with easy access to affordable legal services through a network of independent law firms. LegalFix, its corporate entity, and its officers, directors, employees, agents, and contractors do not provide legal advice, services, or representation—directly or indirectly.
The articles and information on the site are not legal advice and should not be relied upon—they are for information purposes only. You should become a LegalFix member to get legal services from one of our network law firms.
You should not disclose confidential or potentially incriminating information to LegalFix—you should only communicate such information to your network law firm.
The benefits and legal services described in the LegalFix legal plans are not always available in all states or with all plans. See the legal plan Benefit Overview and the more comprehensive legal plan contract during checkout for coverage details in your state.
Use of this website, the purchase of legal plans, and access to the LegalFix networks of law firms are subject to the LegalFix Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.