Chase v. State

• Decision Date: 02 May 1927
• Citation: 93 Fla. 963,113 So. 103
• Parties: CHASE, Sheriff of Dade County v. STATE ex rel BURCH.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

113 So. 103

93 Fla. 963

CHASE, Sheriff of Dade County v. STATE ex rel BURCH.

Florida Supreme Court, Division A.

May 2, 1927

Error to Circuit Court, Dade County; H. F. Atkinson, Judge.

Habeas corpus by the State, on the relation of H. L. Burch, directed to Henry R. Chase, Sheriff of Dade County. Judgment discharging the relator, and defendant brings error.

Reversed.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

Habeas corpus is writ of right and is sometimes issued on very informal application; motion to quash habeas corpus does not lie because of mere formal defects in petition; on motion to quash habeas corpus for defects in petition, inquiry is to legality of alleged detention and not as to technical formality of showing made for issuance of writ (Rev. Gen. St 1920, § 3571). The writ of habeas corpus is a writ of right and is sometimes issued upon very informal application. Motion to quash the writ does not lie because of mere formal defects in the petition upon which it was issued; the inquiry in such cases being not as to the technical formality of the showing made to the court for the issuance of the writ, but as to the legality of the alleged detention of the prisoner.

Petition for habeas corpus held sufficient for issuance of writ (Rev Gen. St. 1920, § 3571). A petition for the writ of habeas corpus alleging that the petitioner was 'unlawfully imprisoned, detained, confined, deprived, and restrained of his personal liberty in the county jail, Miami, in the state of Florida, by Henry R. Chase, sheriff, Dade county Florida,' held to sufficiently comply with the spirit and meaning of section 3571, Rev. Gen. St. 1920, as to constitute a sufficient foundation for the issuance of the writ.

What state's executive must have before him to authorize issuing rendition warrant and warrant's force and validity must be tested by federal Constitution and act of Congress (Rev. St. U.S. § 5278 [U. S. Comp. St. § 10126]). The requirements as to what the executive of the asylum state must have before him to authorize the issuance of the executive warrant of rendition, and the force and validity of the executive warrant itself, must be tested by the controlling provision of the federal Constitution and the act of Congress adopted in pursuance thereof.

Executive rendition warrant, regular and sufficient on face, held to constitute prima facie evidence of facts stated therein and of authority to arrest and detain. Where the executive warrant of rendition is regular and sufficient upon its face and complies with the essential requirements of the congressional act, it constitutes prima facie evidence of the facts therein set forth and of the authority of the authorized officer to arrest and detain the petitioner in custody for the purpose stated is such warrant.

Governor issuing rendition warrant must have been shown that requisition was accompanied by copy of indictment or affidavit before magistrate, certified by Governor or chief magistrate of state or territory from which he fled, who demands person as fugitive (Rev. St. U.S. § 5278 [U. S. Comp St. § 10126]). Before the Governor of the asylum state is authorized under the federal act to issue a warrant of rendition, it must have been made to appear to him: (1) That the person named in such warrant has been demanded as a fugitive from justice by the executive authority of the state or territory from which he fled; (2) that the requisition was accompanied with a copy of an indictment found, or an affidavit made before a magistrate, substantially charging the person demanded with a crime against the laws of the state from whose justice he is alleged to have fled; and (3) that the copy of the indictment or affidavit was duly certified as authentic by the Governor or chief magistrate of the state or territory from whence the person so charged has fled.

On habeas corpus law presumes that executive warrant of rendition valid and sufficient on its face was properly issued; on habeas corpus, courts may review Governor's action in determining jurisdictional prerequisites to rendition warrant; on habeas corpus, burden of overcoming prima facie case made by rendition warrant for extradition is on accused (Rev. St. U.S. § 5278 [U. S. Comp. St. § 10126]). While the law presumes that the chief executive did his duty and that an executive warrant of rendition, valid and sufficient on its fact, was properly issued, the courts have the power, upon habeas corpus, to review the action of the Governor in determining the jurisdictional prerequisites to the issuance of such warrant, the burden of overcoming the prima facie case made by the warrant being upon the accused.

On habeas corpus by one held for extradition, court of judge may only determine whether he is subject to extradition and whether federal Constitution and laws have been complied with; on habeas corpus, court may ascertain whether prisoner is person in question, whether he is substantially charged with offense against laws of demanding state, whether he was bodily in demanding state at time of offense, and whether he is fugitive (Rev. St. U.S. § 5278 [U. S. Comp. St. § 10126]). The power of the court or judge in habeas corpus proceedings brought by one held in custody under an executive warrant of rendition is necessarily limited to the question of whether the prisoner in fact falls within the provisions of the federal statute, that is, whether he is subject to extradition, and whether the federal Constitution and laws have been complied with. Thus the court may ascertain whether the prisoner is the person charged, and, if so, whether he is substantially charged with a crime against the laws of the demanding state, whether he is a fugitive from justice, and whether he was bodily in the demanding state at the time the offense was committed.

On habeas corpus, courts may not determine guilt of offense for which extradition is sought (Rev. St. U.S. § 5278 [U. S. Comp. St. § 10126]). Upon habeas corpus proceedings in behalf of one held under an executive warrant of rendition, the courts of this state have no power to determine such person's guilt or innocence of the offense charged against the criminal laws of another state.

On habeas corpus, it is only necessary to consider whether indictment shows fugitive was charged, however inartificially, with crime in demanding state (Rev. St. U.S. § 5278 [U. S. Comp. St. § 10126]). In habeas corpus proceedings in behalf of one held by virtue of an executive warrant of rendition, which recited that the executive authority of the demanding state had produced and filed with the executive authority of this state a copy of indictment found charging the person demanded with having committed in said demanding state a crime against its laws, duly certified as authentic by the executive of the demanding state, it is only necessary to consider whether the indictment shows satisfactorily that the fugitive has been in fact, however inartificially, charged with crime in the state from which he is alleged to have fled.

Courts will not inquire whether Governor has application for requisition sworn to or otherwise complied with his state's statutes (Rev. St. U.S. § 5278 [U. S. Comp. St. § 10126]). If the Governor of a demanding state, in making requisition upon the Governor of this state, complies with the federal act and makes such showing to the Governor of this state as that act requires, the courts of this state will presume that he acted within his proper powers and will not sit in judgment upon him to inquire whether he had had the applicant for requisition to swear to the application therefor, or had otherwise complied with statutory rules of the demanding state designed to safeguard the proper handling of requisition matters.

Requisition need not show prosecutor's name was indorsed on back of indictment or that it was signed by proper prosecuting officer (Rev. St. U. S.§ 5278 [U. S. Comp. St. § 10126]). Where in extradition proceedings the Governor of this state has been furnished by the Governor of the demanding state with a copy of an indictment found substantially charging a crime against the laws of said state and duly certified as authentic, as required by the federal act, it is not necessary for the requisition to go further and show that the prosecutor's name had been indorsed on the back of the indictment, or that the indictment had been signed by the proper prosecuting officer, though these matters may have been required by the statutes of the demanding state.

That charge was on improper motives and that accused was not guilty will not justify release on habeas corpus in extradition proceeding (Rev. St. U.S. § 5278 [U. S. Comp. St. § 10126]). Evidence that the charge against one sought in extradition proceedings was made on improper motives and that he was not guilty of the crime charged will not justify his release from custody under a writ of habeas corpus, where the extradition proceedings are in compliance with the Constitution and laws of the United States.

Evidence held not to justify release on habeas corpus of one accused of child abandonment; authority from Governor's rendition warrant is not overcome by evidence that accused was in demanding state at time of alleged offense but was innocent (Rev. St. U.S. § 5278 [U. S. Comp. St. § 10126]). Where upon habeas corpus proceedings it appears that the indictment certified as authentic in the requisition of the demanding state and which was the foundation of the warrant of extradition issued by the Governor of this state charged the defendant with having committed the crime of abandonment of his minor children on January 1, 1926, in Columbus, Ga., and it appears by the petitioner's own testimony that he was bodily present in the demanding state...