State v. Grey
| Decision Date | 21 April 1980 |
| Citation | 602 S.W.2d 259 |
| Parties | STATE of Tennessee, Appellee, v. Barry GREY, Appellant. |
| Court | Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals |
John C. Zimmerman, Asst. Atty. Gen., Nashville, John E. Rodgers, Sr., Asst. Dist. Atty. Gen., Nashville, for appellee.
Patricia L. Newton, Asst. Public Defender, Nashville, for appellant.
This interlocutory appeal presents the question of whether a defendant who is being detained in a local jail prior to trial can be transferred to the state penitentiary for safekeeping under T.C.A. § 41-1125. That statute provides:
In all cases where the jail in which a prisoner is confined becomes insufficient from any cause, any circuit or criminal judge, upon the application of the sheriff and proof of the fact, may order the prisoner, by mittimus or warrant, to be removed to the nearest sufficient jail.
The parties have stipulated that the defendant was arrested on October 17, 1979, and again on February 20, 1980, and was incarcerated in the Davidson County jail when he was unable to post bond. On March 14, 1980, the State filed a motion seeking to have the defendant transferred to the state penitentiary, the main branch of which is located in Davidson County. According to the stipulation filed in this case,
. . . (a)t the hearing of this motion, in the afternoon of March 14, 1980, the State presented as a witness, Mr. David Raybin, Assistant District Attorney General, who had received information concerning a prospective escape by the defendant from jail. . . . Mr. Raybin, over objection of defense counsel, testified as to the substance of his conversation with other people regarding information he had received. A letter concerning a past escape attempt by the defendant was also introduced.
At the conclusion of the hearing the trial judge determined, again quoting from the stipulation, "that the Davidson County Jail was insufficient to safely keep (the defendant) in custody, as the Court found he was an escape risk." After denying a motion to reconsider, the trial judge later entered an order granting interlocutory appeal by permission, as authorized by Rule 9, Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Rule 9 gives this court the discretion to join in the trial court's order and permit interlocutory review in this case. We conclude that such review is justified under the provision in Rule 9(a)(1) allowing interlocutory appeal if necessary "to prevent irreparable injury . . . (where) review upon entry of final judgment will be ineffective." Moreover, in light of the need to avoid further delay in this matter, we have dispensed with the normal docketing procedures set out in Rule 9(e) and have elected to treat the matter on its merits.
T.C.A. § 41-1125, set out above, is one of a series of provisions which permit the transfer of "prisoners" for safekeeping. T.C.A. § 41-1123 authorizes the sheriff to convey a prisoner to the "nearest sufficient jail in the state" whenever "the jail of his county is insufficient for the (prisoner's) safekeeping." This authority is subject to the securing of a court order ("mittimus or warrant") as required by § 41-1125. That the drafters of this scheme intended the term "jail" to mean "county jail," as opposed to the state penitentiary, can readily be seen by construing §§ 41-1123 and 41-1125 in pari materia with §§ 41-1124, 41-1126 and 41-1128. T.C.A. § 41-1124 permits a committing magistrate, upon a showing that the local jail is insufficient, to order the prisoner to be taken "to the nearest sufficient county jail (emphasis supplied)." And in § 41-1126, the "sheriff is authorized to employ as many as two (2) persons, if necessary, in removing a prisoner under §§ 41-1123 41-1125, and they shall be each allowed for such services as is provided for similar services in conveying convicts to the penitentiary (emphasis supplied)." Costs are allowed, under § 41-1128, whenever the court pursuant to § 41-1125 "orders the prisoner to be carried to the jail of another county . . . (emphasis supplied)."
By contrast to these provisions governing the transfer of prisoners from one county jail to another, separate authority for the transfer of "convicts to the penitentiary" is found in Chapter 40, Title 31, governing execution of judgment following conviction in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Chamberlain
...been transferred to a hospital and left the hospital, could not be prosecuted for escaping from a county jail. See also State v. Grey, 602 S.W.2d 259 (Tenn.Crim.App.1980). The term "jail" has received at law a broader meaning than the generally accepted definition as a place or building for......
-
State v. Walker
..."insufficient" and "safekeeping of a prisoner", which we think cover more than just the prevention of an escape. Cf. State v. Grey, 602 S.W.2d 259 (Tenn.Crim.App.1980). Recognizing the authority of a sheriff under this code section, it could hardly be argued that the sheriff in this case co......
-
Noel v. State Of Tenn.
...the entry of the... order." In denying relief on the basis of this claim, the post-conviction court cited State v. Grey, 602 S.W.2d 259, 261 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1980), in which this court analyzed a similar pretrial transfer to the penitentiary pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 41-......