Joseph Morrison appealed from his convictions and sentences on various drug and firearm charges, challenging his convictions on the ground that the trial court was without jurisdiction to try him because he was being illegally detained under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers, OCGA § 42-6-20 et seq. the “IAD”. We conclude that the trial court had jurisdiction over the criminal matters at issue and affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals. See Morrison v. State , 272 Ga. App. 34 611 SE2d 720 2005. The record demonstrates that appellant was serving a federal sentence in a Florida federal correctional institution in 2002 when, pursuant to Article IV of the IAD, the State of Georgia lodged a detainer against him for the crime of terroristic threats. Appellant sent a written request for final disposition of the terroristic threat charge, thereby triggering his speedy trial rights under the IAD, and was transferred to Georgia to be tried on that charge. See OCGA § 46-6-20, Art. III a prisoner shall be tried within 180 days after service upon prosecutor of request for final disposition of charges. The Georgia prosecutor decided not to pursue the terroristic threat charge, however, and it was dismissed with prejudice in May 2003 in accordance with Article V a of the IAD. Although the terroristic threat charge was dismissed, appellant remained in the custody of Georgia authorities and in June and July 2003, he was tried and convicted on the drug and firearm charges at issue in this appeal. The Court of Appeals affirmed his convictions and this Court granted appellant’s petition for certiorari.
Appellant argues that his drug and firearm convictions must be reversed because the State violated Article V of OCGA § 42-6-20 by continuing to hold him after the dismissal of the terroristic threat charge and therefore, the trial court was without jurisdiction to convict and sentence him on charges not included in the detainer. Article V d of the IAD provides: The temporary custody referred to in this agreement shall be only for the purpose of permitting prosecution on the charge or charges contained in one or more untried indictments, informations or complaints which form the basis of the detainer or detainers or for prosecution on any other charge or charges arising out of the same transaction. OCGA § 42-6-20. There is no question that the drug and firearm charges of which appellant was convicted were not listed in the detainer1 and that they did not arise out of the same transaction as the terroristic threat charge. Thus, the sole issue in this appeal is whether the State’s violation of Article V d in itself divested the trial court of jurisdiction over the prosecution of these unrelated charges.
