Com. ex rel. Kelly v. Santo

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Writing for the CourtBefore BELL; EAGEN; BELL
Citation436 Pa. 204,259 A.2d 456
PartiesCOMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania ex rel. Count KELLY, Appellant, v. Gerald SANTO, Warden of Philadelphia Detention Center. COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania ex rel. Major COXSON, Appellant, v. Gerald SANTO, Warden of Philadelphia Detention Center.
Decision Date28 November 1969

Page 456

259 A.2d 456
436 Pa. 204
COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania ex rel. Count KELLY, Appellant,
v.
Gerald SANTO, Warden of Philadelphia Detention Center.
COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania ex rel. Major COXSON, Appellant,
v.
Gerald SANTO, Warden of Philadelphia Detention Center.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Nov. 28, 1969.

[436 Pa. 205]

Page 457

F. Emmett Fitzpatrick, Jr., James J. Wilson, Philadelphia, for appellants.

Arlen Specter, Dist. Atty., James D. Crawford, Paul R. Michel, Harold K. Don, Jr., Asst. Dist. Attys., Richard A. Sprague, First Asst. Dist. Atty., Philadelphia, for appellee.

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

[436 Pa. 206] OPINION

EAGEN, Justice.

Harold Gelvan, Richard Berman, Major Coxson and Count Kelly were indicted in the State of New York for grand larceny and conspiracy to commit grand larceny. Subsequently, Kelly and Cixson were taken into custody in the City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and confined while awaiting extradition. Habeas corpus proceedings were instituted contesting the legality of their arrests and proposed extraditions, pursuant to Section 10 of the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, Act of July 8, 1941, P.L. 288 § 10, 19 P.S. § 191.10. These appeals are from the lower court's order denying the writs. 1 We affirm.

The scope of review over extradition procedures by the courts of an asylum state is legally limited. Commonwealth ex rel. Walker v. Hendrick, 434 Pa. 175, 253 A.2d 95 (1969), and Commonwealth ex rel. Edgar v. Davis, 425 Pa. 133, 228 A.2d 742 (1967). Such courts may not inquire into or determine the guilt or innocence of the party sought to be extradited. Commonwealth ex rel. Edgar v. Davis, supra. However, it is the obligation of the courts of the asylum state to make certain that the requirements of the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, supra, have been satisfied before the accused is surrendered to the demanding state. Commonwealth ex rel. Aronson v. Price, 412 Pa. 493, 194 A.2d 881 (1963).

Page 458

Before extradition is ordered it should be determined, inter alia, that the person whose extradition is sought is charged with a crime in the demanding state, and that the requisition papers are in order. See Commonwealth ex rel. Edgar v. Davis, supra.

Our study of the record is persuasive that the Governor's warrant recites in detail sufficient facts to establish[436 Pa. 207] that Coxson and Kelly committed a crime under the laws of the State of New York and that the extradition papers are otherwise in proper order.

It is also generally required before extradition is ordered that it be established (if proof is demanded) that the subject of the extradition was present in the demanding state at the time when the alleged crime was committed. Although stated in another context, it is the appellants' prime contention that since the evidence at the habeas corpus hearing in the court below failed to disclose their presence in the State of New York when the conspiracy was formed or during the continuation thereof, extradition should not be ordered. However, this position overlooks an exception to the general rule requiring presence in the demanding state at the time the crime was committed which is provided for in Section 6 of the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, supra:

'The Governor of this State may also surrender on demand of the executive authority of any other state any person in this State charged in such other State in the manner provided in section 3 with committing an act in this State * * * intentionally resulting in a crime in the state whose executive authority is making the demand, and the provisions of this act not otherwise inconsistent shall apply to such cases even though the accused was not in that state at the time of the commission of the crime and has not fled therefrom.'

At the hearing in the court below, the evidence established that a conspiracy was hatched by Berman and Gelvan in New York State to issue a series of checks on a New York bank to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 practice notes
  • Com. v. Carlos
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    • July 7, 1975
    ...to the demanding state. Commonwealth ex rel. Aronson v. Price, 412 Pa. 493, 194 A.2d 881 (1963).' Commonwealth ex rel. Kelly v. Santo, 436 Pa. 204, 206, 259 A.2d 456, 457 (1969). See also the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act [462 Pa. 268] of July 8, 1941, P.L. 288 § 3, 19 P.S. § 191.3. The ......
  • McGovern v. Hospital Service Ass'n
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Pennsylvania
    • October 26, 2001
    ...for?" The majority answers: "To ensure, at all costs, proper procedure." I dissent from its jurisprudence ... Id., 435 Pa. at 512-13, 259 A.2d at 456 (Eagen, J., dissenting). Thus, while Nissley is not precedent since a majority of justices did not join the opinion, see e.g., Commonwealth v......
  • Com. ex rel. Osburn v. Haas
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    • July 13, 1970
    ...statutory requirements for extradition have not been met and the record establishes that they have. Commonwealth ex rel. Kelly v. Santo, 436 Pa. 204, 206, 259 A.2d 456 (1969); Commonwealth ex rel. Flood v. Pizzo, 434 Pa. 208, 211, 252 A.2d 656 (1969). He contends, rather, that certain colla......
3 cases
  • Com. v. Carlos
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    • July 7, 1975
    ...to the demanding state. Commonwealth ex rel. Aronson v. Price, 412 Pa. 493, 194 A.2d 881 (1963).' Commonwealth ex rel. Kelly v. Santo, 436 Pa. 204, 206, 259 A.2d 456, 457 (1969). See also the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act [462 Pa. 268] of July 8, 1941, P.L. 288 § 3, 19 P.S. § 191.3. The ......
  • McGovern v. Hospital Service Ass'n
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Pennsylvania
    • October 26, 2001
    ...for?" The majority answers: "To ensure, at all costs, proper procedure." I dissent from its jurisprudence ... Id., 435 Pa. at 512-13, 259 A.2d at 456 (Eagen, J., dissenting). Thus, while Nissley is not precedent since a majority of justices did not join the opinion, see e.g., Commonwealth v......
  • Com. ex rel. Osburn v. Haas
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    • July 13, 1970
    ...statutory requirements for extradition have not been met and the record establishes that they have. Commonwealth ex rel. Kelly v. Santo, 436 Pa. 204, 206, 259 A.2d 456 (1969); Commonwealth ex rel. Flood v. Pizzo, 434 Pa. 208, 211, 252 A.2d 656 (1969). He contends, rather, that certain colla......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT