Opinion ID: 1060830
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 33

Heading: interstate compact on detainers

Text: Appellant Hall argues that the state failed to comply with the requirements of the Interstate Compact on Detainers, T.C.A. § 40-31-101, et seq., [14] by not granting him a speedy trial. Specifically, appellant Hall argues that once the state requested that he be returned from Kentucky pursuant to the Interstate Compact on Detainers, it was obligated to comply with all of its requirements. Therefore, appellant Hall submits that the state was not entitled to withdraw its request under the Interstate Compact on Detainers and proceed under the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, T.C.A. § 40-9-101, et seq. Because appellant Hall was not tried within 180 days, as required by the Interstate Compact on Detainers, Art. III, he argues that the charges should have been dismissed. We find no support for appellant Hall's position. When an accused is sought in another state for crimes committed in Tennessee, the state may initiate proceedings pursuant to the Interstate Compact on Detainers or under the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act. If a defendant is returned to Tennessee under the Interstate Compact on Detainers, the state must try the defendant within 180 days of his return to the state in which the crimes were committed. T.C.A. § 40-31-101, Art. III. The receiving state only receives temporary custody of the prisoner for the sole purpose of prosecuting any untried charges. T.C.A. § 40-31-101, Art. V. The Interstate Compact on Detainers and the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act do not indicate that the initiation of proceedings under one automatically precludes proceedings under the other. The two Acts were adopted in Tennessee [t]o facilitate the important duties of transferring individuals into and out of this state for trial on criminal charges, and to bring uniformity to the procedures among the several states. State ex rel. Young v. Rose, 670 S.W.2d 238, 239 (Tenn.Crim.App.1984). The main difference between the two Acts is that the procedures under the Interstate Compact on Detainers result in merely a temporary transfer to the receiving state. Id. While the specific issue in the present case has not been addressed by Tennessee courts, we are persuaded by the holding in People v. Quackenbush, 687 P.2d 448 (Colo.1984), where the court held that an agreement under the Interstate Compact on Detainers is not an exclusive method by which officials in one state may obtain custody of a defendant incarcerated in another state. Id. at 450. The Colorado court went on to find that a state retains its constitutional and statutory rights to extradite a fugitive from another state. Id. Accordingly, we find no error in the state's decision to withdraw its request under the Interstate Compact on Detainers and bring appellant Hall into Tennessee via the extradition process. Accordingly, appellant Hall's claim is without merit.