Com. ex rel. Flood v. Pizzo

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
• Writing for the Court: Author: Roberts
• Citation: 434 Pa. 208,252 A.2d 656
• Decision Date: 23 April 1969
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania ex rel. James FLOOD, Appellant, v. Louis R. PIZZO, Warden of the Lackawanna County Prison, North Washington Avenue, Scranton, Pennsylvania.

252 A.2d 656

434 Pa. 208

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania ex rel. James FLOOD, Appellant,
v.
Louis R. PIZZO, Warden of the Lackawanna County Prison,

North Washington Avenue, Scranton, Pennsylvania.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

April 23, 1969.

[434 Pa. 209] James T. McHale, Levy, Preate & Purcell, Scranton, for appellant.

[434 Pa. 210] Joseph J. Cimino, Dist. Atty., Robert W. Munley, Asst. Dist. Atty., Scranton, for appellee.

[434 Pa. 209] Before BELL, C.J., and JONES, COHEN, EAGEN, O'BRIEN, ROBERTS and POMEROY, JJ.

[434 Pa. 210] OPINION OF THE COURT

ROBERTS, Justice.

Appellant has taken this appeal from the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County denying his petition for habeas corpus and allowing his extradition to California. Appellant was initially arrested in Scranton, Pennsylvania, on January 16, 1968, pursuant to a Los Angeles, California, warrant which charged him with grand theft. Bail was set at $16,500, in default of which appellant was remanded to the Lackawanna County Prison. Appellant declined to waive extradition and petitioned instead for a reduction of bail. The petition was denied on January 17, 1968 and on January 23, 1968 appellant filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, [252 A.2d 657] challenging the validity of his arrest. The petition was denied after a hearing and appellant was remanded to jail pending extradition.

At appellant's request, an executive hearing was held on February 20, 1968 and on February 27, 1968 the Governor of Pennsylvania issued warrants of arrest. See Uniform Criminal Extradition Act § 7, Act of July 8, 1941, P.L. 288, § 7, 19 P.S. § 191.7. On March 8, 1968 another petition for a writ of habeas corpus was filed, bail was reduced, and appellant was released on nominal bail. A hearing was held on March 15, 1968 at which time California authorities withdrew the original warrants for arrest, appellant's petition was granted, and appellant was discharged. Appellant was immediately rearrested on a new California warrant. The habeas corpus proceeding now before us followed.

The Commonwealth claims it was necessary for California to withdraw the original arrest warrants and [434 Pa. 211] make a second arrest because of the refusal of the complainant on the original warrant to come to Pennsylvania to identify appellant. As a result, appellant was rearrested on a new warrant whose complainant was willing to come to Pennsylvania to make the necessary...