The Indiana Court of Appeals has ruled against Mahde M. Dannon in his appeal to dismiss felony charges against him. The court found that Dannon did not properly invoke his rights under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD), which governs how states handle detainers for prisoners in custody in other jurisdictions. This ruling affects Dannon, who is currently serving a lengthy federal prison sentence, and clarifies the requirements for defendants seeking to have charges dismissed based on detainers.

Dannon was originally charged with Level 6 felony criminal confinement and Class A misdemeanor battery in December 2018. After posting bond, he was arrested by federal authorities on unrelated charges. He failed to appear for a pretrial conference in his state case, leading to a bench warrant being issued against him. Dannon was later convicted in federal court and sentenced to 20 years in prison.

In March 2022, the Federal Correctional Institution in Sandstone, Minnesota, sent a detainer action letter to the Marion County Prosecutor’s Office regarding Dannon's pending state charges. The letter requested an update on the case and asked for either a formal detainer or a statement indicating no further interest in prosecution. The prosecutor's office did not respond to this letter.

In January 2025, Dannon filed a motion to dismiss the charges, arguing that his incarceration at FCI Sandstone prevented him from receiving a timely trial under the IAD. The trial court denied his motion, stating that the detainer action letter did not comply with the IAD. Dannon later obtained legal representation and filed another motion to dismiss in September 2025, which was also denied by the trial court.

The court ruled that Dannon's motion to dismiss did not properly follow the IAD procedures. According to the IAD, a prisoner must deliver a written notice of their request for final disposition to the prosecuting officer and the appropriate court. The court noted, "Dannon did not submit a request for final disposition in accordance with the IAD, we affirm the trial court’s denial of Dannon’s motion to dismiss."

Judge May, who authored the opinion, emphasized that strict compliance with the IAD is required. The court found that while the failure-to-appear bench warrant issued by the trial court constituted a detainer, Dannon did not follow the necessary procedures to have the charges dismissed. The court stated, "The IAD’s 180-day period does not begin to run until the prisoner’s request for final disposition has been delivered to the court and the prosecutor."

This ruling has significant implications for Dannon, who remains in federal custody until 2036. The court's decision clarifies that defendants cannot rely on informal communications or motions filed directly with the court to trigger their rights under the IAD. Instead, they must adhere to the formal procedures outlined in the agreement.

The ruling also serves as a reminder to other defendants in similar situations about the importance of following legal protocols when seeking to challenge pending charges. Failure to comply with these procedures can result in the continuation of charges and the inability to access rehabilitative programs while incarcerated.

As for what happens next, Dannon's legal team may choose to explore further legal options, including potential appeals. However, the court's ruling provides a clear framework for how detainers and requests for final disposition must be handled under Indiana law. The court's decision is final unless further appeals are filed.