Com. ex rel. Flood v. Pizzo

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

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.

James T. McHale, Levy, Preate & Purcell, Scranton for appellant.

Joseph J. Cimino, Dist. Atty., Robert W. Munley Asst. Dist. Atty., Scranton, for appellee.

Before BELL, C.J., and JONES, COHEN, EAGEN, O'BRIEN ROBERTS and POMEROY, JJ.

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, 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 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 identification. Appellant contends that this course of conduct, and his incarceration for fifty-two days under the original warrant, deprived him of fundamental fairness guaranteed by the fourteenth amendment and of his right to a speedy trial guaranteed by the sixth amendment.

Whatever may be the merits of appellant's contentions, they are not cognizable in an extradition proceeding. We recently reaffirmed the proposition that our inquiry in cases...