Bloom v. Lundburg
| Decision Date | 21 November 1961 |
| Citation | 175 A.2d 568,149 Conn. 67 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | Albert BLOOM v. Charles LUNDBURG. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut |
Jacob D. Zeldes, Bridgeport, with whom were Arnold J. Bai, Bridgeport, and, on the brief, David Goldstein, Bridgeport, for the appellant (plaintiff).
Otto J. Saur, State's Attorney, Bridgeport, with whom, on the brief, was John F. McGowan, Assistant State's Attorney, Bridgeport, for the appellee (defendant).
Before BALDWIN, C. J., and KING, MURPHY and SHEA, JJ., and ALCORN, Superior Court Judge. MURPHY, Associate Justice.
The plaintiff obtained a writ of habeas corpus to test the legality of his arrest and detention under a warrant issued by the governor of Connecticut on the requisition of the governor of New York, who sought his extradition to that state as a fugitive from justice. The court held that the requisition and the supporting documents were in accordance with the requirements of law and dismissed the writ. The plaintiff has appealed.
The court determined the matter on the sufficiency of the extradition papers, implemented by two waivers of extradition signed by the plaintiff. As the waivers are not material to the principal issue and the defendant has not urged their consideration, we shall disregard them. 1 No testimony was presented by either side. The finding of the court was based on certain exhibits which were introduced in evidence. They included the New York requisition papers; the arrest warrant based thereon, issued by the governor of Connecticut with endorsements of service by the defendant, a state policeman; and three other documents to which specific reference is unnecessary.
With such corrections in the finding as the plaintiff is entitled to, the salient facts are these: The plaintiff was convicted in the state of New York on March 23, 1937, of the crime of forgery in the second degree and was sentenced as a second offender to an indeterminate sentence in prison for not less than ten years and not more than twenty years. He was confined under this sentence until July 27, 1943, when he was conditionally released on parole, but on June 19, 1945, he was declared delinquent and on June 18, 1946, was reimprisoned. He was again released on parole on December 6, 1954. He had then served fourteen years, nine months and twenty-two days. He was again, on March 3, 1957, declared delinquent and a parole violator. In 1958, in the United States District Court in Massachusetts, he was convicted on nineteen counts of unlawful possession of stolen mail and of forging and uttering United States treasury checks and was sentenced to imprisonment for two years and confined in the federal correctional institute in Danbury, Connecticut. On his release from that institution, he was arrested under the warrant issued by the governor of Connecticut. It is the claim of the plaintiff that the maximum penalty for a conviction of the crime of forgery in the second degree in New York is imprisonment for ten years and that he has served in excess of that term and therefore is not a fugitive from justice subject to extradition to New York. A claim advanced by him in the trial court that he could not be extradited from Connecticut because he was in this state involuntarily to serve the sentence imposed by the federal court has been abandoned.
Article IV, § 2, of the United States constitution provides that a 'Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.' To implement the operation of this provision and to provide for its execution, Congress has enacted an extradition statute. 18 U.S.C. § 3182. In 1957, Connecticut adopted the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act. General Statutes §§ 54-157-54-185. The purpose of the act is to make uniform the law of those states which enact it. It also codifies the procedural features relating to extradition and serves to expedite the execution of both the constitutional provision and the federal law. Cook v. Rodger, 215 Ind. 500, 501, 20 N.E.2d 933.
The plaintiff concedes that a paroled convict who violates his parole can be extradited from an asylum state to serve the unexpired portion of the sentence imposed in the demanding state. He contends that the requisition and supporting papers from New York do not include any copy of an information or indictment charging him with being a second offender; that, therefore, the only valid sentence which could have been imposed, on the basis of these papers, was that applicable to a first offender; and that the lack of a copy of an information or indictment charging him with being a second offender is fatal to the extradition demand. There is no such information or indictment among the papers submitted to the governor of Connecticut. Whether one is essential to warrant extradition is the sole question we have to decide.
The penal law of New York provides that forgery in the second degree is punishable by imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years. N.Y.Pen.Law § 888. The punishment for a person convicted of forgery in the second degree who had previously been convicted of a felony must be an indeterminate term, the minimum of which must be not less than one-half of the longest term prescribed on a first conviction, and the maximum not longer than twice such longest term. Id. § 1941. The procedure under which a subsequent offender is to be arraigned...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Glavin v. Warden, State Prison
...Bursque v. Moore, 26 Conn.Sup. 469, 227 A.2d 255. There is no error. In this opinion the other judges concurred. 1 In Bloom v. Lundburg, 149 Conn. 67, 70, 175 A.2d 568, 569, cert. denied, 369 U.S. 819, 82 S.Ct. 831, 7 L.Ed.2d 785, we observed that: 'Article IV, § 2, of the United States con......
-
Wentworth v. Bourbeau
...Conn. ---, ---, 441 A.2d 177 (1981), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 102 S.Ct. 1974, 72 L.Ed.2d 443 (1982); see also Bloom v. Lundburg, 149 Conn. 67, 70, 175 A.2d 568 (1961), cert. denied, 369 U.S. 819, 82 S.Ct. 831, 7 L.Ed.2d 785 (1962). It bears repeating only that an extradition hearing "is......
-
Clark v. Commissioner of Correction
...to courts in other jurisdictions that have interpreted § 5 of the act. See General Statutes § 54-185; see also Bloom v. Lundburg, 149 Conn. 67, 70, 175 A.2d 568 (1961), cert. denied, 369 U.S. 819, 82 S. Ct. 831, 7 L. Ed. 2d 785 The case law in other jurisdictions falls into two categories. ......
-
Bryan v. Conn, 26161
...v. Nelson, 172 Colo. 179, 471 P.2d 596 (1970); Burnette v. McClearn, 162 Colo. 503, 427 P.2d 331 (1967). See also Bloom v. Lundburg, 149 Conn. 67, 175 A.2d 568 (1961); Ex parte Gray, 426 S.W.2d 241 Accordingly, we affirm the trial court. DAY, HODGES and LEE, JJ., concur. ...