Com. v. Caffrey

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Writing for the Court: BROSKY; ROBERTS; POPOVICH; ROBERTS
• Citation: 508 A.2d 322,352 Pa.Super. 406
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Thomas CAFFREY, Appellant.
• Decision Date: 28 April 1986

Page 322

508 A.2d 322 352 Pa.Super. 406 COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania
v.
Thomas CAFFREY, Appellant. Superior Court of Pennsylvania. Submitted Nov. 4, 1985.
Filed April 28, 1986.

Page 323

[352 Pa.Super. 407] Patrick J. Flannery, Asst. Public Defender, Wilkes-Barre, for appellant.

Joseph Giebus, Asst. Dist. Atty., Wilkes-Barre, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Before BROSKY, POPOVICH and ROBERTS, JJ.

BROSKY, Judge.

This appeal is from the denial of a writ of habeas corpus sought to prevent appellant's extradition to Delaware. Appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying the writ as the matter was res judicata in other proceedings before the trial court of another county in this Commonwealth. We cannot reach the merits of this contention because appellant has already been extradited to Delaware. The appeal is, thus, moot and this appeal is, accordingly, quashed.

After the denial of the instant writ, the extradition hearing was held and appellant was extradited to the requesting state, Delaware. That rather simple fact is of the greatest significance, for it deprives this Court of the ability to effectively rule on the merits of this appeal. Arguendo that appellant would prevail here on the merits, at whom would we direct our order line? The courts of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania do not, under our federal system of government, issue orders to the governments of our sister states. "States, through their courts, should not reach beyond the limits imposed on them by their status as coequal sovereigns in a federal system." Beatrice Foods Co. v. Proctor & Schwartz, 309 Pa.Super. 351, 358, 455 A.2d 646, 649 (1982). A state's jurisdiction is territorially limited. "The decree of a court of a state cannot operate [352 Pa.Super. 408] extraterritorially, nor can a state exercise jurisdiction by judicial process or otherwise over persons or property outside its territorial limits." Commonwealth v. Graham, 367 Pa. 553, 561, 80 A.2d 829, 833 (1951). As so often happens in the law, the simpler the proposition, the more difficult it is to find a statement of it. That is so here. Research has not disclosed a single case in these United States standing for the proposition that the asylum state cannot review, on appeal, the propriety of the denial of a writ of habeas corpus when the subject has already been taken to the demanding state. ¹ Only the reverse situation has been treated. ²

In Commonwealth v. Carlos, 462 Pa. 262, 341 A.2d 71 (1975), this Commonwealth's courts were asked to rule on the propriety of appellant's extradition to this state....