IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON

Assigned on Briefs October 1, 2013

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. ARCHIE TYRONE WILSON

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lake County

No. 12CV9758 R. Lee Moore, Jr., Judge

No. W2012-02559-CCA-R3-CD - Filed December 18, 2013

Appellant, Archie Tyrone Wilson, was in custody in the State of Tennessee. In July 2012,

the State of Florida submitted a request under the Interstate Compact on Detainers for

custody of Appellant in connection with a charge of sexual battery. Appellant requested a

hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court ordered his transfer to Florida for

prosecution. On appeal, Appellant argues that the trial court erred. After a thorough review

of the record on appeal, we conclude that the trial court did not err. Therefore, we affirm the

trial court’s order of transfer.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Trial Court is Affirmed.

JERRY L. SMITH,J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which JOSEPH M. TIPTON, P.J., and

NORMA MCGEE OGLE, J., joined.

Timothy Boxx, Assistant District Public Defender, Dyersburg, Tennessee, for appellant,

Archie Tyrone Wilson.

Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General and Reporter; Brent C. Cherry, Assistant Attorney

General; Phillip Bivens, District Attorney General, and Lance Webb, Assistant District

Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.
OPINION

Appellant was being held in custody at the Northwest Correctional Complex in

Tiptonville, Tennessee. On July 23, 2012, the facility received a written request from Florida

to receive temporary custody of Appellant in regards to charges of sexual battery. The

request included a copy of a Florida driver’s license with Appellant’s photograph; certified

copies of the indictments listing Appellant, including his date of birth and social security

number; and fingerprint cards for a person identified by Appellant’s name. Appellant

requested an extradition hearing.

The hearing was held on October 22, 2012. The State introduced identifying

information, including Appellant’s photograph, his name, date of birth, and social security

number. Appellant testified and stated that the victim did not know who he was and that the

officers from Florida beat him to obtain evidence from him. On cross-examination,

Appellant admitted that the State’s evidence properly identified him. At the conclusion of

the hearing, the trial court made the following findings and conclusion:

All right, gentlemen, the State has made out it[s] prima facie case as far as

identification is concerned. There’s not any defense proof to rebut that.

[Appellant], those claims, those issues that you have mentioned are not issues

that are properly for consideration on an extradition hearing. Those issues are

issues that you need to discuss with your attorney once you’ve been extradited.

But right now, the issue is proper identification. You have admitted all

that yourself. So, the extradition will be allowed.

Appellant appeals from this decision.

ANALYSIS

On appeal, Appellant argues that the trial court erred in ordering his extradition

because the Florida “detectives beat him and illegally obtained a DNA sample while he was

in jail in Nashville.” The State maintains that Appellant failed to adduce proof requiring a

denial of the extradition request.

The Interstate Compact on Detainers is an agreement among the states, the District

of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and the United States, see Carchman v. Nash,
473 U.S. 716, 719 (1985), which, through “cooperative procedures,” seeks to “encourage the

expeditious and orderly disposition of . . . charges [outstanding against a prisoner] and

determination of the proper status of any and all detainers based on untried indictments,

informations or complaints.” T.C.A. § 40-31-101, art. I.

When an individual contests his transfer under the Interstate Compact on Detainers,

the trial court must determine that the state demanding custody has presented the proper

paperwork, and that the inmate is the same individual identified by the charging instruments.

State v. Whitt, 753 S.W.2d 369, 370 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1988). When objecting to the

identification, the prisoner has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that he is

not the individual sought. State ex rel. Johnson v. Turner, 338 S.W.2d 558, 559 (Tenn.

1960); Whitt, 753 S.W.2d at 370.

In this case, Appellant has not challenged the paperwork submitted by the State of

Florida. Appellant testified that the victim did not know him and that his rights were violated

when his DNA was obtained. As stated above, there are only two issues in a transfer contest

hearing: the paperwork and the identification. Appellant did not deny that the items

presented by the State identified him as the person sought by the State of Florida. Therefore,

he did not meet his burden to prove that he was not the person identified. Furthermore,

Appellant’s argument that his rights were violated was not a proper issue for the hearing in

Tennessee. State ex rel. Sneed v. Long, 871 S.W.2d 148, 151-52 (Tenn. 1994).

Therefore, the trial court did not err in ordering Appellant’s extradition to Florida.

CONCLUSION

For the forgoing reasons, we affirm the decision of the trial court.

____________________________________

JERRY L. SMITH, JUDGE