Chapter 976

976.03 Annotation The scope of inquiry in extradition habeas corpus cases is discussed. State v. Ritter, 74 Wis. 2d 227, 246 N.W.2d 552 (1976).

976.03 Annotation There is no right to a hearing before the governor in extradition proceedings under this section. The mode or manner of a person’s departure from the state does not affect the status of a fugitive from justice. State ex rel. Jackson v. Froelich, 77 Wis. 2d 299, 253 N.W.2d 69 (1977).

976.03 Annotation An appropriate issue for the habeas corpus court under sub. (10) is not whether a warrant was properly issued in the demanding state, but whether, given properly authenticated documents, probable cause is stated that justifies the issuance of a governor’s warrant in the asylum state. State ex rel. Sieloff v. Golz, 80 Wis. 2d 225, 258 N.W.2d 700 (1977).

976.03 Annotation A convict paroled from federal prison in the state was a “fugitive from justice” subject to extradition by the demanding state. State ex rel. O’Connor v. Williams, 95 Wis. 2d 378, 290 N.W.2d 533 (Ct. App. 1980).

976.03 Annotation Although the sending state could retake a compact parolee under s. 57.13 [now s. 304.13] without process, if it chooses to extradite the parolee it must meet extradition requirements. State ex rel. Reddin v. Meekma, 99 Wis. 2d 56, 298 N.W.2d 192 (Ct. App. 1980).

976.03 Annotation Affirmed. 102 Wis. 2d 358, 306 N.W.2d 664 (1981).

976.03 Annotation No waiver of jurisdiction will be found unless waiver was manifestly intended by the demanding state at the time it yielded to another sovereignty. State ex rel. Graves v. Williams, 99 Wis. 2d 65, 298 N.W.2d 392 (Ct. App. 1980).

976.03 Annotation If the demanding state has not a made judicial determination of probable cause or if documents do not show prima facie validity, the Sieloff analysis appears to be appropriate and not in conflict with controlling federal law in Michigan v. Doran. State v. Stone, 111 Wis. 2d 470, 331 N.W.2d 83 (1983).

976.03 Annotation The court erred in refusing to allow the defendant to introduce evidence that he was not a fugitive from justice. State ex rel. Rodencal v. Fitzgerald, 164 Wis. 2d 411, 474 N.W.2d 795 (Ct. App. 1991).

976.03 Annotation A demanding state’s extradition documents are in order when they include a warrant issued by a magistrate from the demanding state who is statutorily required to make a finding of probable cause. State ex rel. Ehlers v. Endicott, 187 Wis. 2d 57, 523 N.W.2d 189 (Ct. App. 1994).

976.03 Annotation The 30 and 60-day periods for detention under subs. (15) and (17) do not apply to persons already in detention. State ex rel. Ehlers v. Endicott, 188 Wis. 2d 57, 523 N.W.2d 189 (Ct. App. 1994).

976.03 Annotation A waiver of extradition and this section expressly gave Wisconsin the right to the petitioner’s custody to serve a Wisconsin sentence imposed while the prisoner was serving a sentence in Nevada. At the completion of the Wisconsin sentence, the scope and purpose of the waiver and this section were satisfied and completed. Nothing in the waiver or this section governed or guaranteed future events. Specifically, the petitioner had no right or legitimate expectation that he would be returned to Nevada upon the completion of his Wisconsin sentence or of immunization from potential commitment proceedings under ch. 980. Pharm v. Bartow, 2005 WI App 215, 287 Wis. 2d 663, 706 N.W.2d 693, 04-0583.

976.03 Annotation Affirmed. 2007 WI 13, 298 Wis. 2d 702, 727 N.W. 2d 1, 04-0583.

976.03 Annotation When a Wisconsin prisoner is transported out of state for emergency medical care, acting under s. 976.03 is required. 80 Atty. Gen. 41.

976.03 Annotation Once the governor of an asylum state has acted on an extradition request based on a demanding state’s judicial determination that probable cause existed, no further inquiry may be had on that issue in the asylum state. Michigan v. Doran, 439 U.S. 282 (1978).

976.03 Annotation Under the federal extradition act, federal courts have the power to compel a state governor to extradite a fugitive. Puerto Rico v. Branstad, 483 U.S. 219 (1987).

976.04 976.04 Uniform act on close pursuit.

976.04(1) (1) Any member of a duly organized state, county or municipal peace unit of another state of the United States who enters this state in close pursuit, and continues within this state such close pursuit, of a person in order to arrest the person on the grounds that the person is believed to have committed a felony in such other state, shall have the same authority to arrest and hold in custody such person, as members of a duly organized state, county or municipal peace unit of this state have, to arrest and hold in custody a person on the grounds that the person has committed a felony in this state.

976.04(2) (2) If an arrest is made in this state by an officer of another state in accordance with sub. (1), the officer shall without unnecessary delay take the person arrested before a judge of the county in which the arrest was made, who shall conduct a hearing for the purpose of determining the lawfulness of the arrest. If the judge determines that the arrest was lawful the judge shall commit the person arrested to await for a reasonable time the issuance of an extradition warrant by the governor of this state or admit the person to bail for such purpose. If the judge determines that the arrest was unlawful, the judge shall discharge the person arrested.

976.04(3) (3) Subsection (1) shall not be construed so as to make unlawful any arrest in this state which would otherwise be lawful.

976.04(4) (4) For the purpose of this section, “state” includes the District of Columbia.

976.04(5) (5) “Close pursuit” as used in this section includes fresh pursuit as defined by the common law, and also the pursuit of a person who has committed a felony or who is reasonably suspected of having committed a felony. It also includes the pursuit of a person suspected of having committed a supposed felony, though no felony has actually been committed, if there are reasonable grounds for believing that a felony has been committed. Close pursuit as used herein shall not necessarily imply instant pursuit, but pursuit without unreasonable delay.

976.04(6) (6) This section shall be cited as the “Uniform Act on Close Pursuit”.

976.04 History History: 1993 a. 486; 1995 a. 417.

976.05 976.05 Agreement on detainers. The agreement on detainers is hereby enacted into law and entered into by this state with all other jurisdictions legally joined therein in the form substantially as follows:

The contracting states solemnly agree that:

976.05(1) (1) Article I. The party states find that charges outstanding against a prisoner, detainers based on untried indictments, informations or complaints, and difficulties in securing speedy trial of persons already incarcerated in other jurisdictions, produce uncertainties which obstruct programs of prisoner treatment and rehabilitation. Accordingly, it is the policy of the party states and the purpose of this agreement to encourage the expeditious and orderly disposition of such charges and determination of the proper status of any and all detainers based on untried indictments, informations or complaints. The party states also find that proceedings with reference to such charges and detainers, when emanating from another jurisdiction, cannot properly be had in the absence of cooperative procedures. It is the further purpose of this agreement to provide such cooperative procedures.

976.05(2) (2) Article II. As used in this agreement:

976.05(2)(a) (a) “Receiving state” means the state in which trial is to be had on an indictment, information or complaint under sub. (3) or (4).

976.05(2)(b) (b) “Sending state” means a state in which a prisoner is incarcerated at the time that the prisoner initiates a request for final disposition under sub. (3) or at the time that a request for custody or availability is initiated under sub. (4).

976.05(2)(c) (c) “State” means a state of the United States; the United States of America; a territory or possession of the United States; the District of Columbia; and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

976.05(3) (3) Article III.

976.05(3)(a) (a) Whenever a person has entered upon a term of imprisonment in a penal or correctional institution of a party state, and whenever during the continuance of the term of imprisonment there is pending in any other party state any untried indictment, information or complaint on the basis of which a detainer has been lodged against the prisoner, the prisoner shall be brought to trial within 180 days after the prisoner has caused to be delivered to the prosecuting officer and the appropriate court of the prosecuting officer’s jurisdiction written notice of the place of his or her imprisonment and his or her request for a final disposition to be made of the indictment, information or complaint, but for good cause shown in open court, the prisoner or the prisoner’s counsel being present, the court having jurisdiction of the matter may grant any necessary or reasonable continuance. The request of the prisoner shall be accompanied by a certificate of the appropriate official having custody of the prisoner, stating the term of commitment under which the prisoner is being held, the time already served, the time remaining to be served on the sentence, the amount of good time earned, the time of parole eligibility or date of release to extended supervision of the prisoner and any decisions of the department relating to the prisoner.

976.05(3)(b) (b) The written notice and request for final disposition referred to in par. (a) shall be given or sent by the prisoner to the department, or warden, or other official having custody of the prisoner, who shall promptly forward it together with the certificate to the appropriate prosecuting official and court by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested.

976.05(3)(c) (c) The department, or warden, or other official having custody of the prisoner shall promptly inform the prisoner of the source and contents of any detainer lodged against the prisoner and shall also inform the prisoner of the prisoner’s right to make a request for final disposition of the indictment, information or complaint on which the detainer is based.

976.05(3)(d) (d) Any request for final disposition made by a prisoner under par. (a) shall operate as a request for final disposition of all untried indictments, informations or complaints on the basis of which detainers have been lodged against the prisoner from the state to whose prosecuting official the request for final disposition is specifically directed. The department, or warden, or other official having custody of the prisoner shall forthwith notify all appropriate prosecuting officers and courts in the several jurisdictions within the state to which the prisoner’s request for final disposition is being sent of the proceeding being initiated by the prisoner. Any notification sent pursuant to this paragraph shall be accompanied by copies of the prisoner’s written notice, request and the certificate. If trial is not had on any indictment, information or complaint contemplated hereby prior to the return of the prisoner to the original place of imprisonment, such indictment, information or complaint shall not be of any further force or effect, and the court shall enter an order dismissing the same with prejudice.

976.05(3)(e) (e) Any request for final disposition made by a prisoner under par. (a) shall also be deemed to be a waiver of extradition with respect to any charge or proceeding contemplated thereby or included therein by reason of par. (d), and a waiver of extradition to the receiving state to serve any sentence there imposed upon the prisoner after completion of the prisoner’s term of imprisonment in the sending state. The request for final disposition shall also constitute a consent by the prisoner to the production of the prisoner’s body in any court where the prisoner’s presence may be required in order to effectuate the purposes of this agreement and a further consent voluntarily to be returned to the original place of imprisonment in accordance with the provisions of this agreement. Nothing in this paragraph shall prevent the imposition of a concurrent sentence if otherwise permitted by law.

976.05(3)(f) (f) Escape from custody by the prisoner subsequent to the prisoner’s execution of the request for final disposition referred to in par. (a) shall void the request.

976.05(4) (4) Article IV.

976.05(4)(a) (a) The appropriate officer of the jurisdiction in which an untried indictment, information or complaint is pending shall be entitled to have a prisoner against whom the officer has lodged a detainer and who is serving a term of imprisonment in any party state made available in accordance with sub. (5) (a) upon presentation of a written request for temporary custody or availability to the appropriate authorities of the state in which the prisoner is incarcerated: provided that the court having jurisdiction of such indictment, information or complaint has duly approved, recorded and transmitted the request: and that there shall be a period of 30 days after receipt by the appropriate authorities before the request is honored, within which period the governor of the sending state may disapprove the request for temporary custody or availability, either upon the governor’s own motion or upon motion of the prisoner.

976.05(4)(b) (b) Upon receipt of the officer’s written request under par. (a), the appropriate authorities having the prisoner in custody shall furnish the officer with a certificate stating the term of commitment under which the prisoner is being held, the time already served, the time remaining to be served on the sentence, the amount of good time earned, the time of parole eligibility or date of release to extended supervision of the prisoner, and any decisions of the state parole agency relating to the prisoner. Said authorities simultaneously shall furnish all other officers and appropriate courts in the receiving state who lodged detainers against the prisoner with similar certificates and with notices informing them of the request for custody or availability and of the reasons therefor.

976.05(4)(c) (c) In respect to any proceeding made possible by this subsection, trial shall be commenced within 120 days of the arrival of the prisoner in the receiving state, but for good cause shown in open court, the prisoner or the prisoner’s counsel being present, the court having jurisdiction of the matter may grant any necessary or reasonable continuance.

976.05(4)(d) (d) Nothing contained in this subsection shall be construed to deprive any prisoner of any right which the prisoner may have to contest the legality of the prisoner’s delivery under par. (a), but such delivery may not be opposed or denied on the grounds that the executive authority of the sending state has not affirmatively consented to or ordered such delivery.

976.05(4)(e) (e) If trial is not had on any indictment, information or complaint contemplated hereby prior to the prisoner’s being returned to the original place of imprisonment under sub. (5) (e), such indictment, information or complaint shall not be of any further force or effect, and the court shall enter an order dismissing the same with prejudice.

976.05(5) (5) Article V.

976.05(5)(a) (a) In response to a request made under sub. (3) or (4), 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. If the request for final disposition is made by the prisoner, the offer of temporary custody shall accompany the written notice under sub. (3). In the case of a federal prisoner, the appropriate authority in the receiving state shall be entitled to temporary custody as provided by this agreement or to the prisoner’s presence in federal custody at the place for trial, whichever custodial arrangement may be approved by the custodian.

976.05(5)(b) (b) The officer or other representative of a state accepting an offer of temporary custody shall present the following upon demand:

976.05(5)(b)1. 1. Proper identification and evidence of his or her authority to act for the state into whose temporary custody the prisoner is to be given.

976.05(5)(b)2. 2. A duly certified copy of the indictment, information or complaint on the basis of which the detainer has been lodged and on the basis of which the request for temporary custody of the prisoner has been made.

976.05(5)(c) (c) If the appropriate authority refuses or fails to accept temporary custody of said person, or in the event that an action on the indictment, information or complaint on the basis of which the detainer has been lodged is not brought to trial within the period provided in sub. (3) or (4), the appropriate court of the jurisdiction where the indictment, information or complaint has been pending shall enter an order dismissing the same with prejudice, and any detainer based thereon shall cease to be of any effect.

976.05(5)(d) (d) 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 for prosecution on any other charge or charges arising out of the same transaction. Except for the prisoner’s attendance at court and while being transported to or from any place at which the prisoner’s presence may be required, the prisoner shall be held in a suitable jail or other facility regularly used for persons awaiting prosecution.

976.05(5)(e) (e) At the earliest practicable time consonant with the purposes of this agreement, the prisoner shall be returned to the sending state.

976.05(5)(f) (f) During the continuance of temporary custody or while the prisoner is otherwise being made available for trial as required by this agreement, time being served on the sentence shall continue to run but good time shall be earned by the prisoner only if, and to the extent that, the law and practice of the jurisdiction which imposed the sentence allows.

976.05(5)(g) (g) For all purposes other than that for which temporary custody as provided in this agreement is exercised, the prisoner shall be deemed to remain in the custody of and subject to the jurisdiction of the sending state and any escape from temporary custody may be dealt with in the same manner as an escape from the original place of imprisonment or in any other manner permitted by law.

976.05(5)(h) (h) From the time that a party state received custody of a prisoner pursuant to this agreement until such prisoner is returned to the territory and custody of the sending state, the state in which the one or more untried indictments, informations or complaints are pending or in which trial is being had shall be responsible for the prisoner and shall also pay all costs of transporting, caring for, keeping and returning the prisoner. This paragraph shall govern unless the states concerned have entered into a supplementary agreement providing for a different allocation of costs and responsibilities as between or among themselves. Nothing herein contained shall be construed to alter or affect any internal relationship among the departments, agencies and officers of and in the government of a party state, or between a party state and its subdivisions, as to the payment of costs, or responsibilities therefor.

976.05(6) (6) Article VI.

976.05(6)(a) (a) In determining the duration and expiration dates of the time periods provided in subs. (3) and (4), the running of said time periods shall be tolled whenever and for as long as the prisoner is unable to stand trial, as determined by the court having jurisdiction of the matter.

976.05(6)(b) (b) No provision of this agreement, and no remedy made available by this agreement, shall apply to any person who is adjudged to be mentally ill.

976.05(7) (7) Article VII. Each state party to this agreement shall designate an officer who, acting jointly with like officers of other party states, shall promulgate rules and regulations to carry out more effectively the terms and provisions of this agreement, and who shall provide, within and without the state, information necessary to the effective operation of this agreement.

976.05(8) (8) Article VIII. This agreement shall enter into full force as to a party state when such state has enacted the same into law. A state party to this agreement may withdraw herefrom by enacting a statute repealing the same. However, the withdrawal of any state shall not affect the status of any proceedings already initiated by inmates or by state officers at the time such withdrawal takes effect, nor shall it affect their rights in respect thereof.

976.05(9) (9) Article IX. This agreement shall be liberally construed so as to effectuate its purposes. The provisions of this agreement shall be severable and if any phrase, clause, sentence or provision of this agreement is declared to be contrary to the constitution of any party state or of the United States or the applicability thereof to any government, agency, person or circumstance is held invalid, the validity of the remainder of this agreement and the applicability thereof to any government, agency, person or circumstance shall not be affected thereby. If this agreement shall be held contrary to the constitution of any state party hereto, the agreement shall remain in full force as to the remaining states and in full force as to the state affected as to all severable matters.

976.05(10) (10) In this section:

976.05(10)(a) (a) “Appropriate court”, with reference to the courts of this state, means the circuit court.

976.05(10)(b) (b) “Department” means the department of corrections.

976.05(10)(c) (c) “Good time” includes time credit under s. 302.11.

976.05(11) (11) All courts, departments, agencies, officers and employees of this state and its political subdivisions are hereby directed to enforce the agreement on detainers and to cooperate with one another and with other parties in enforcing the agreement and effectuating its purpose.

976.05(12) (12) Nothing in this section or in the agreement on detainers shall be construed to require the application of s. 939.6195 or 939.62 to any person on account of any conviction had in a proceeding brought to final disposition by reason of the use of said agreement.

976.05(13) (13) Any prisoner who while in another state as a result of the application of the agreement on detainers escapes from lawful custody shall be punished as though such escape had occurred within this state.

976.05(14) (14) The department shall give over the person of any inmate of any penal or correctional institution under its jurisdiction whenever so required by the operation of the agreement on detainers. The central administrator of and information agent for the agreement on detainers shall be the secretary of corrections.

976.05(15) (15) Copies of this section shall, upon its approval, be transmitted to the governor of each state, the attorney general and the secretary of state of the United States, and the council of state governments.

976.05 History History: 1977 c. 449; 1979 c. 89; 1981 c. 390; 1983 a. 189, 528; 1989 a. 31; 1993 a. 486; 1997 a. 283; 2017 a. 145.

976.05 Annotation The uniform detainer act, s. 976.05 is unconstitutional in: 1) failing to require that the prisoner be notified of his rights; 2) denying him equal protection similar to that afforded prisoners under the criminal extradition act; and 3) not requiring a judicial hearing. The use of a hearing similar to that required under the extradition act would cure the defects. State ex rel. Garner v. Gray, 55 Wis. 2d 574, 201 N.W.2d 163 (1972).

976.05 Annotation The question of whether another state, which has filed a detainer, has failed to grant the prisoner a speedy trial after demand must be decided by the demanding state. The appropriate officer to file a detainer under Art. IV (a) is the prosecuting officer of the county of the foreign state where the charges exist. State ex rel. Garner v. Gray, 59 Wis. 2d 323, 208 N.W.2d 161 (1973).

976.05 Annotation Res judicata should not be applied to bar multiple detainer requests if prior requests were dismissed because of the inadequacy or insufficiency of the requesting documents. In Matter of Custody of Aiello, 166 Wis. 2d 27, 479 N.W.2d 178 (Ct. App. 1991).

976.05 Annotation A waiver of the time limits under this section may be made by conduct and does not require an express personal waiver. State v. Aukes, 192 Wis. 2d 338, 531 N.W.2d 382 (Ct. App. 1995).

976.05 Annotation If government officials complied with the procedural requirements of this section and the prisoner refused to follow those procedures, the prisoner will be held to the technical requirements of this section. State v. Blackburn, 214 Wis. 2d 372, 571 N.W.2d 695 (Ct. App. 1997), 97-0451.

976.05 Annotation The 180-day time limit in sub. (3) does not apply if the detainee has been convicted but not sentenced prior to being returned from a party state. State v. Grzelak, 215 Wis. 2d 577, 573 N.W.2d 538 (Ct. App. 1997), 97-1454.

976.05 Annotation A writ of habeas corpus prosequendum does not constitute a detainer subject to the requirements of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers, s. 976.05. State v. Eesley, 225 Wis. 2d 248, 591 N.W.2d 846 (1999), 97-1839.

976.05 Annotation The “anti-shuffling” provision under sub. (4) (e) may be waived if the prisoner requests a procedure that is inconsistent with the statute. It is not necessary to knowingly and intentionally relinquish the rights under sub. (4) (e); even if the prisoner is unaware of these rights, they may be waived by a request for contrary treatment. State v. Nonahal, 2001 WI App 39, 241 Wis. 2d 397, 626 N.W.2d 1, 00-0603.

976.05 Annotation The defendant waived his right to a speedy trial by his conduct, discharging his attorney six days before the scheduled trial and agreeing to a trial date outside of the 180-day limit. Having asked for, and accepted, treatment inconsistent with his rights under this section, the defendant cannot then assert those rights in an effort to win a dismissal of charges. State v. Miller, 2003 WI App 74, 261 Wis. 2d 866, 661 N.W.2d 466, 02-0851.

976.05 Annotation The apparent failure of Illinois prison authorities to comply with the IAD by failing to notify the defendant of Wisconsin charges does not warrant dismissal of the Wisconsin charge. State v. Townsend, 2006 WI App 177, 295 Wis. 2d 844, 722 N.W. 2d 753, 03-0429.

976.05 Annotation This section applies to detainers lodged against prisoners that are based on untried indictments, informations, or complaints. There is nothing that indicates that the rights accorded to prisoners under it attach when there are no untried charges outstanding. Status as a parolee does not keep a former prisoner within this statute. Pharm v. Bartow, 2007 WI 13, 298 Wis. 2d 702, 727 N.W. 2d 1, 04-0583.

976.05 Annotation A prisoner has the following rights after he or she files a request for disposition under sub. (3): 1) transportation to a receiving state to answer pending charges; 2) commencement of a trial within 180 days in the receiving state; 3) return to the sending state to complete the prisoner’s term of incarceration; and 4) upon completion of the prisoner’s term of incarceration in the sending state, return to the receiving state to serve any term of incarceration that has been imposed there. Pharm v. Bartow, 2007 WI 13, 298 Wis. 2d 702, 727 N.W. 2d 1, 04-0583.

976.05 Annotation Once a prisoner has properly requested a prompt and final disposition of pending criminal charges, the only way the state could avoid its obligation to bring the prisoner to trial within 180 days of the request under sub. (3) was to dismiss the untried complaint or information. Because the state only modified the arrest warrant to rule out nationwide extradition and did not withdraw the detainer and dismiss the criminal complaint, the source for the prisoner’s request for a speedy trial was still in existence. State v. Tarrant, 2009 WI App 121, 321 Wis. 2d 69, 772 N.W.2d 750, 08-1736.

976.05 Annotation A detainer is a notification filed with the institution in which a prisoner is serving a sentence, advising that the prisoner is wanted to face pending criminal charges in another jurisdiction. How a prison first learns of a warrant or pending charges has no bearing on whether a detainer has been lodged. What matters is whether a notification satisfying the definition of a detainer is filed. Here, the sheriff’s department confirmed for the prison the existence of a nationwide arrest warrant and pending charges, and then faxed copies directly to the prison, which constituted a detainer. State v. Onheiber, 2009 WI App 180, 322 Wis. 2d 708, 777 N.W.2d 682, 09-0460.

976.05 Annotation When the defendant presented no evidence demonstrating that a 3rd party who signed a receipt for defendant’s request for a speedy trial was an agent for the prosecuting officer in this case, the date on which the defendant “caused to be delivered to the prosecuting officer” his request for a speedy trial under sub. (3) (a) was the date on which the parties agreed that the request was delivered to the district attorney’s office. State v. Thomas, 2013 WI App 78, 348 Wis. 2d 699, 834 N.W.2d 425, 12-0823.

976.05 Annotation Pursuant to Blackburn, in the absence of evidence of intentional or negligent sabotage by the state, the defendant is required to strictly comply with this section’s technical requirements. State v. Thomas, 2013 WI App 78, 348 Wis. 2d 699, 834 N.W.2d 425, 12-0823.

976.05 Annotation A writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum issued by a federal court directing state authorities to produce a state prisoner for a federal criminal trial is not a detainer under this section. United States v. Mauro, 436 U.S. 340 (1978).

976.05 Annotation A prisoner has a right to a pretransfer hearing. Cuyler v. Adams, 449 U.S. 433 (1981).