Com. v. Beauchamp

• Decision Date: 09 July 1992
• Citation: 413 Mass. 60,595 N.E.2d 307
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH v. Robert BEAUCHAMP.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

Page 307

595 N.E.2d 307

413 Mass. 60

COMMONWEALTH v. Robert BEAUCHAMP.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts,

Middlesex.

Argued March 2, 1992.

Decided July 9, 1992.

David Slade, Boston, for Com.

Martin C. Gideonse, Cambridge, for defendant.

Before LIACOS, C.J., and WILKINS, NOLAN, LYNCH and O'CONNOR, JJ.

LYNCH, Justice.

The Commonwealth appeals from an order of a Superior Court judge awarding the defendant credit against his prison sentence for time spent in custody in another jurisdiction while he contested rendition to Massachusetts, and from a denial of a motion to modify that order. The defendant moved, under Mass.R.Crim.P. 30, 378 Mass. 900 (1979), to require the Department of Correction to award credit for time served outside Massachusetts. The judge treated the motion as an application for declaratory relief. We transferred the appeals here on our own motion and we now reverse. ¹

The judge based his findings entirely on a stipulation of facts with attached exhibits submitted by the parties. We summarize those findings. The defendant was convicted of murder in the second degree and sentenced to life imprisonment on February 21, 1973. On April 29, 1974, the defendant failed to return from a twelve-hour furlough, and the next day the Commonwealth sought a complaint charging the defendant with escape. In December of 1980, the Commonwealth filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts charging the defendant with unlawful flight to avoid prosecution.

On July 6, 1981, the defendant was arrested by Federal authorities on a Federal violation in California. On July 9, 1981, the Commonwealth informed the Federal authorities in California of its intention to regain custody of the defendant. Thereafter, a detainer was lodged by Massachusetts against the defendant in California. The defendant was sentenced to nine-months' imprisonment on the Federal charge and was held in continuous Federal custody from his arrest until the expiration of his Federal sentence on March 8, 1982. At that time, the defendant waived extradition and was ordered removed to Illinois, on an Illinois detainer, to face Federal mail fraud charges. On February 17, 1983, after serving his Federal sentence for mail fraud in Illinois, the defendant appeared in the Cook County Circuit Court for a hearing in connection with the outstanding Massachusetts escape charge and on a local misdemeanor deceptive practices charge. ² A Governor's warrant on the escape charge was issued on March 14, 1983, and transmitted to the Governor of Illinois on March 24, 1983. The defendant challenged his extradition in a habeas corpus proceeding in the Illinois State courts. Beauchamp v. Elrod, 137 Ill.App.3d 208, 92 Ill.Dec. 86, 484 N.E.2d 817 (1985). When he did not prevail there, he challenged his extradition in a Federal habeas corpus proceeding, which was also denied. United States ex rel. Beauchamp v. Elrod, No. 86 C 1208, 1987 WL 15164 (N.D.Ill.1987). On August 7, 1987, the defendant was finally returned to Massachusetts. The defendant pleaded guilty to the escape charge pending against him, and the parties agreed to have the case placed on file.

At issue is the determination that the defendant was entitled to 1,574 days credit against his Massachusetts sentence for the time he spent in custody in Illinois, fighting rendition to Massachusetts.

No Massachusetts statute grants the defendant credit for time spent fighting rendition. ³ In cases involving credit to be given for time served elsewhere, "[w]here no statute controls, we have been establishing guiding principles, case by case...." Chalifoux v. Commissioner of Correction, 375 Mass. 424, 428, 377 N.E.2d 923 (1978). We have grounded our decisions on principles of fairness and justice. See id. (credit given for sentence served in California where Massachusetts unfairly declined to receive prisoner on transfer and then declined to credit him with time served on a sentence intended to be concurrent with his Massachusetts sentence, without so informing him); Commonwealth v. Grant, 366 Mass. 272, 317 N.E.2d 484 (1974) (credit given for time spent in confinement before sentencing); Brown v. Commissioner of Correction, 336 Mass. 718, 147 N.E.2d 782 (1958) (credit given from time of imposition of subsequent "from and after" sentences when prior conviction reversed); Lewis v. Commonwealth, 329 Mass. 445, 108 N.E.2d 922 (1952) (credit given for time served on greater offense when subsequent review showed evidence only supported lesser offense and sentence for lesser offense then imposed). See also Commonwealth v. Aquafresca, 11 Mass.App.Ct. 975, 417 N.E.2d 1224 (1981) (fairness and justice require that an escapee be credited with the time it would reasonably take Massachusetts authorities, and those in the State where the escapee is arrested, to return him to Massachusetts).

The defendant argues that he has a statutory right to fight rendition under G.L. c. 276, § 19 (1990 ed.), and that, if he is not credited with time spent fighting rendition, he is in essence punished for exercising such statutory right. The Commonwealth argues that the defendant should not be credited with time spent fighting rendition because the general rule is that an escape "suspend[s] the running of the original sentence until such time as [the defendant] should be returned to" the institution from which he escaped. Kinney, petitioner, 5 Mass.App.Ct. 457, 459-460, 363 N.E.2d 1337 (1977). The Commonwealth also argues that denial of credit is not punishment, but rather the direct consequences of acts on the part of the defendant to delay his return to Massachusetts.

Interstate rendition or extradition is governed by the Federal Constitution, statutes, and case law. ⁴ "State legislation upon the subject of interstate rendition is justified only in so far as it aids, assists and facilitates the operation of the constitutional provisions and the Federal enactment." Harris, petitioner, 309 Mass. 180, 183, 34 N.E.2d 504 (1941). Although a defendant has a statutory right to fight rendition, very few issues may be contested. "Once the governor has granted extradition, a court considering release on habeas corpus can do no more than decide (a) whether the extradition documents on their face are in order; (b) whether the petitioner has been charged with a crime in the demanding state; (c) whether the petitioner is the person named in the request for extradition; and (d) whether the petitioner is a fugitive." Michigan v. Doran, 439 U.S. 282, 289, 99 S.Ct. 530, 535, 58 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978).

The defendant raised no substantial argument on any of those issues. The Illinois court ruled that any defects in the documents were merely technical. Beauchamp v. Elrod, 137 Ill.App.3d 208, 213, 92 Ill.Dec. 86, 484 N.E.2d 817 (1985). ⁵ The defendant's argument, that he was not a fugitive because the Massachusetts prison authorities had furloughed him with instructions not to return, was frivolous in the absence of evidence in verification. See id. at 214, 92 Ill.Dec. 86, 484 N.E.2d 817.

In the out-of-State proceedings the defendant also made constitutional claims of inordinate delay and a right to bail. The asylum State is an inappropriate forum in which to raise constitutional issues. Sweeney v. Woodall, 344 U.S. 86, 89-90, 73 S.Ct. 139, 140-141, 97 L.Ed. 114 (1952). Illinois recognizes an exception to...