I- Whether Hunter Brown's Covington, County, Al. Charges in CASE NO. :CC-20-303. should've been dismissed pursuant to the Interstate Agreement on Detainer's Act since he was not brought to trial on those charges within 180 days of serving the prosecuting officer and the Court with his request for final disposition and written notice of the place of his imprisonment.

II- Whether the circuit court erred in awarding restitution to Progressive Insurance when no admissible evidence was offered to show how the value of the restitution amount was determined.

I- Would the United States Supreme Court support the errors of the State of Alabama in accepting Mr. Brown to go to trial within 180 days pursuant to the Interstate Agreement on Detainer's Act. . . knowing that COVID restrictions went into effect a month before receiving Mr. Brown's request preventing ALL Trial in the State of Alabama?

II- Some party State's have enacted time lines to cases involving speedy trial claims. Page four of the Appellee's brief in APPENDIX-B, to the Court of Criminal Appeals in Alabama shows the prosecutor in Brown's case had recognized the importance of cases with the possibility of time lines under the speedy trial rule, and insured that those were brought to trial in a timely manner. . . Will the U.S. Supreme Court allow Alabama cases to abuse there discretion in NOT recognizing Brown's time line under the I.A.D. Act.

III- Will the U.S. Supreme Court allow Alabama's seemingly intentional error go without correction. . . When Article IV of Part II, of the I.A.D. Act dictates that time periods "shall be tolled whenever and for as long as the prisoner is unable to stand trial, as determined by the court having jurisdiction of the matter. " In other words, the prosecutor had a remedy for the prohibition of trials due to the COVID restrictions without allowing Brown to exceed the 180 day time line, and violate the I.A.D. Act.

whether-interstate-agreement-on-detainers-act-was-violated