Christopher Thomas directly appeals the denial of his motion for discharge and acquittal based upon an alleged failure by the State to comply with Article IV e of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers “IAD”, OCGA § 42-6-20.1 Finding that a direct appeal is not authorized, we dismiss. Thomas is currently serving a sentence in federal prison. He was removed from federal custody pursuant to a “writ to remove from federal custody” issued by the Superior Court of Fulton County on July 26, 2002. The writ stated that Thomas’s presence was “required temporarily” that day for arraignment on murder charges, and that Thomas would be returned to federal custody “within an hour or two.” Thomas was returned to federal custody, and on August 6, 2002, he filed his motion for discharge and acquittal of the pending state indictment for murder and related charges,2 contending that the State had failed to comply with Article IV e of the IAD.3 See Alabama v. Bozeman , 533 U. S. 146 121 SC 2079, 150 LE2d 188 2001. The superior court denied the motion, finding that Thomas did not present evidence that a detainer was lodged against him within the meaning of the IAD,4 and that the motion was frivolous and designed solely for the purposes of delaying his trial on the pending charges; the court also denied the “right for direct appeal.”
Review of the denial of a motion to dismiss a pending indictment for an alleged failure to comply with Article IV e of the IAD, OCGA § 42-6-20, requires a certificate of immediate review and a petition for interlocutory appeal. OCGA § 5-6-34; Miller v. State , 180 Ga. App. 710, 711 350 SE2d 313 1986; see Webster v. State , 251 Ga. 465 306 SE2d 916 1983.5 This is not an appeal from an alleged violation of the constitutional right to a speedy trial; nor does it involve the speedy trial provision of OCGA § 17-7-70. Compare Callaway v. State , 275 Ga. 332 567 SE2d 13 2002. What is at issue is the “antishuttling remedy” of an interstate compact. Alabama v. Bozeman , supra at 156. In Georgia “the direct appealability of interlocutory orders remains the exception rather than the rule.”6 Turner v. Giles , 264 Ga. 812, 813 1 450 SE2d 421 1994. Accordingly, we decline to extend the right of direct appeal to the interlocutory ruling at issue in this case.7
