No person arrested upon a warrant shall be delivered over to the agent whom the executive authority demanding the person has appointed to receive the person, unless the person has been informed of the demand made for surrender and of the crime with which the person is charged, and that the person has the right to demand legal counsel. If the prisoner, the prisoner's friends or counsel shall state that the person or they desire to test the legality of the arrest, the prisoner shall be taken forthwith before a judge of a court of record in this state, who shall fix a reasonable time to be allowed the prisoner within which to apply for a writ of habeas corpus. When the writ is applied for, notice thereof, and of the time and place of hearing thereon, shall be given to the public prosecuting officer of the county in which the arrest is made and in which the accused is in custody, and to the agent of the demanding state.
Acts 1951, ch. 240, § 10 (Williams, § 11935.10); T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 40-1020.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
10
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1984–2025 · leading case:
State ex rel. Young v. Rose, 670 S.W.2d 238 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1984).
State ex rel. Young v. Rose, 670 S.W.2d 238 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1984).
· cites it 2× “See: TCA § 40-9-119. The United States Supreme Court held, by statutory interpretation and without reaching the constitutional claims, that the Detainer Agreement preserved whatever rights an inmate would have had under the Extradition Act.”
State v. Whitt, 753 S.W.2d 369 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1988).
· cites it 2× “Pursuant to T.C.A. § 40-9-119, 1 the defendant did *370 not voluntarily return to the requesting state and made application for a writ of habeas corpus.”
State ex rel. Sneed v. Long, 871 S.W.2d 148 (Tenn. 1994).
· cites it 2× “Notwithstanding Sneed’s interesting constitutional argument, we need not approve or reject the Court of Criminal Appeals’ treatment of this issue; rather, we must base our decision on procedural considerations peculiar to extradition proceedings which are logically prior to the…”
Yates v. Gilless, 841 S.W.2d 332 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1992).
· cites it 2× “In this case, the governor’s warrant commands the arrest and delivery of the petitioner to the DeSoto County, Mississippi, sheriff and provides no time conditions thereon other than allowing the petitioner the right to seek habeas corpus relief pursuant to T.C.A. § 40-9-119.…”
Courtney R. Logan v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2016).
· cites it 2× “T.C.A. § 40-9-119. If the prisoner wishes to contest the legality of the arrest, he or she must be taken before a judge, “who shall fix a reasonable time to be allowed the prisoner within which to apply for a writ of habeas corpus.”
Courtney R. Logan v. Shawn Phillips, Warden (Tenn. Crim. App. 2017).
· cites it 2× “Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-9-119 provides that a person who is to be extradited to another state may apply for a writ of habeas corpus prior to the extradition.”
Jamauri Ransom v. Jerry Wardlow, Warden (Tenn. Crim. App. 2025).
· cites it 2× “The record filed in this case contains neither a petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging the extradition, nor the transcript of the extradition hearing at which the trial court considered the Petitioner’s objection to being extradited.”
Michael Wilsey v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2012).
· cites it 2× “-2- designed to test whether the rendition warrant, the legal process issued by the governor of the asylum state which mandates that the defendant be arrested and turned over to agents of the demanding state, is valid.”
Hunter v. Henry (M.D. Tenn. 2022).
“05 of “The Charter of Nashville and Davidson County” as well as Tennessee Code Annotated Sections 40-9-119, 39-13-302, and 39-16-403.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.