Clayton v. Wichael
Decision Date | 05 April 1966 |
Docket Number | No. 51978,51978 |
Citation | 258 Iowa 1037,141 N.W.2d 538 |
Parties | Gaylan George CLAYTON, Appellant, v. Roy O. WICHAEL, Sheriff of Pottawattamie County, Appellee. |
Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Hess, Peters & Sulhoff, Council Bluffs, for appellant.
F. J. Kraschel, County Atty., and David F. McCann, Asst. County Atty., for appellee.
Plaintiff-appellant, Gaylan George Clayton, was arrested by defendant-appellee, sheriff of Pottawattamie County, under an extradition warrant issued by the Governor of Iowa at the request of the Governor of Oregon. He was charged in that state with the crime of non-support under section 167.605 of the Oregon statutes. Upon his arrest Clayton filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus which after hearing was denied. He has appealed and will be referred to as plaintiff. The sheriff will be referred to as defendant.
Plaintiff contends his restraint is illegal for lack of compliance with the jurisdictional prerequisites of Chapter 759, Code of Iowa, 1962; section 759.6 is unconstitutional; the requisition and supporting documents from Oregon to the Iowa Governor are fatally defective and that plaintiff was not a fugitive from justice within the provisions of United States Constitution, Art. IV, section 2.
No real factual dispute exists in this case. By stipulation all instruments and documents received or issued by the Governor of Iowa as incident to this matter and the issuance of the warrant resulting in plaintiff's arrest were taken as evidence without objections. On October 27, 1964 an information was filed against plaintiff in the district court of Clackamas County, Oregon charging him with the crime of non-support committed on or about October 26, 1964 in said jurisdiction in violation of section 167.605 of Oregon Revised Statutes. A warrant of arrest was issued pursuant to that information and subsequently the Clackamas County district attorney made an application for requisition to the Governor of Oregon. In accordance therewith the Oregon Governor directed a requisition to the Governor of Iowa for delivery of plaintiff to the designated Oregon agent.
On February 26, 1965 the Governor of this state issued an extradition warrant and plaintiff was taken into custody for delivery to the named Oregon agent. This action was then brought.
Plaintiff testified he last resided in Oregon in May 1962, he had not been in Oregon since May or June 1964 and at that time he became a resident of Council Bluffs, Iowa. The testimony of plaintiff, his mother and present wife is undenied he was not in the state of Oregon on October 26, 1964.
I. Section 2, Article IV, of the United States Constitution states in part: '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 constitute a fugitive from justice under this constitutional provision these two essentials are required: (1) The accused having been in the demanding state at the time charged has left it and is within the jurisdiction of another and declines to return voluntarily and (2) He incurred guilt before he left the former state, and while he was bodily present in that state. Seely v. Beardsley, 194 Iowa 863, 190 N.W. 498, and citations; Drumm v. Pederson, 219 Iowa 642, 259 N.W. 208, and citations.
Defendant virtually concedes under the undisputed evidence plaintiff would be entitled to release if extradition were asked under the federal law but points out extradition is requested under the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act which Iowa adopted in 1949 and is now contained in Chapter 759, Code, 1962.
II. Section 759.3 provides no demand for extradition of a person charged with crime in another state shall be recognized by the governor unless it is alleged in writing the accused was present in the demanding state at the time of the alleged offense and that he thereafter fled from the state but expressly excepts cases arising under section 759.6. Section 759.3 also sets out the documents which must accompany a demand for extradition. A careful study of the documents which accompanied the Oregon Governor's demand convinces us the requirements of section 759.3 were met.
Section 759.6 provides:
Plaintiff contends section 759.6 means the information or indictment filed in the demanding state must contain specific allegations the act was committed in some other state and intentionally resulted in the crime charged. He also argues a governor's extradition warrant under section 759.6 is fatally defective unless it contains such findings. We do not agree.
The Oregon information sworn to by plaintiff's former wife states: 'Be It Remembered, that on this day there personally appeared before me, Judge of the District Court for Clackamas County, Oregon, and a Committing Magistrate, Pollyanna B. Clayton Morse who being first duly sworn as a witness concerning the fact, upon his oath deposed and said that the crime of NON-SUPPORT has been committed by Gaylan George Clayton as follows, to wit:
'Dated this 26th day of October, A.D., 1964.'
The Oregon statute on which this charge was filed provides: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Vasquez, In re
...60, 64, 77 So.2d 384 (1954); Papas v. Brown, 88 Ill.App.3d 471, 476, 43 Ill.Dec. 568, 410 N.E.2d 568 (1980); Clayton v. Wichael, 258 Iowa 1037, 1042, 141 N.W.2d 538 (1966) (statement in Governor's warrant that defendant was fugitive "must be disregarded as surplusage" and resulted in no pre......
-
Vetsch v. Sheriff of Spokane County
...him into custody and return him to the demanding state.'5 Moser v. Zaborac, 514 P.2d 12, 14 (Alaska 1973); Clayton v. Wichael, 258 Iowa 1037, 141 N.W.2d 538, 541 (1966); People ex rel. Brenner v. Sain, 29 Ill.2d 239, 193 N.E.2d 767, 768 (1963).6 Sweeney v. Woodall, 344 U.S. 86, 89--90, 73 S......
-
Miller v. Decker
...194 P.2d 800; In re Cooper, 53 Cal.2d 772, 3 Cal.Rptr. 140, 349 P.2d 956; Ennist v. Baden, 158 Fla. 141, 28 So.2d 160; Clayton v. Wichael, 258 Iowa 1037, 141 N.W.2d 538; State ex rel. Gildar v. Kriss, 191 Md. 568, 62 A.2d 568; Ex parte Dalton, 56 N.M. 407, 244 P.2d 790; People ex rel. Fauld......
-
Ex parte Harrison
...Moser v. Zaborac, 514 P.2d 12 (Alaska Sup.Ct.1973); State of Kansas v. Holeb, 188 Neb. 319, 196 N.W.2d 387 (1972); Clayton v. Wichael, 258 Iowa 1037, 141 N.W.2d 538 (1966); and People ex rel. Brenner v. Sain, 29 Ill.2d 239, 193 N.E.2d 767 In Clayton v. Wichael, supra, and People ex rel. Bre......