(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent from the decision of the majority of the Court, which sets aside and voids a conviction of the petitioner on charges of armed robbery. The majority holds that failure of the State to bring the petitioner to trial within 180 days after receipt of his request for final disposition requires dismissal of the indictment pursuant to Article III of the Interstate Compact on Detainers, T.C.A. § 40-2901 et seq., regardless of whether the sending state offers custody to the requesting state.
The trial judge and the majority of the Court of Criminal Appeals reached a contrary conclusion, and I agree with their decision.
Transfer of a prisoner from a state having him in custody to a requesting state requires co-operative action on the part of of the officials of both jurisdictions involved. In the present case the prisoner, pursuant to the provisions of Article III of the Interstate Compact, requested final disposition of his case. The District Attorney General of Shelby County, pursuant to the provisions of Article IV, with approval of the judge of the criminal court of that county, also made a proper request for the temporary custody of the petitioner.
Under the provisions of Article V, when a request is made by either or both of these methods:
“ . . . the appropriate authority in a sending state shall offer to deliver temporary custody of such prisoner to the appropriate authority in the state where such indictment, information or complaint is pending against such person in order that speedy and efficient prosecution may be had.”
The statute expressly provides that if the request is made by the prisoner, this offer of temporary custody shall accompany the written notice sent to the state where the proceedings are pending.
The Iowa authorities wholly failed to comply with the provisions of Article V, and later acknowledged this failure. There was no offer of temporary custody made by the Iowa officials, either accompanying the request of the prisoner, or in response to the request from the District Attorney General of Shelby County. Not until February 1, 1974 did they ever offer custody to the Tennessee officials.
Under these circumstances, it is my opinion that the Tennessee officials have not violated the provisions of the Interstate Compact on Detainers, and that the officials in Tennessee are not responsible for such violation on the part of the Iowa authorities.
I agree with the conclusion stated in the majority opinion of the Court of Criminal. Appeals that the orderly processes of criminal justice in Tennessee should not be disrupted by oversight or omission on the part of officials of the sending state.
The Maryland case cited by the majority, State v. Barnes, 273 Md. 195, 328 A.2d 737 (1974), arose under and actually involved an intrastate statute, not the Interstate Compact, and the delay in bringing the prisoner to trial resulted from actions of Maryland officials, within that state, in transferring the prisoner from a state institution to the county of trial.
In the Pennsylvania case cited, Commonwealth v. Fisher, 451 Pa. 102, 301 A.2d 605 *929(1973), the sending state promptly offered temporary custody to the Pennsylvania officials. The delay involved was wholly that of the requesting state in taking the prisoner into custody. In State v. Lippolis, 107 NJ.Super. 137, 257 A.2d 705 (1969), officials of both the sending and the receiving states appear to have been derelict in their duties, but the sending state had properly offered temporary custody and this offer had been promptly accepted. The delay occurred thereafter in consummating the details of the transfer.
In the instant case, the Tennessee officials acted promptly in taking custody of the prisoner, after it was offered to them by the Iowa authorities.
Under the circumstances shown in this case, in my opinion the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals should be affirmed.