Commonwealth ex rel. Hatton v. Dye

• Decision Date: 22 April 1953
• Citation: 96 A.2d 127,373 Pa. 502
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH ex rel. HATTON v. DYE, Warden.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

96 A.2d 127

373 Pa. 502

COMMONWEALTH ex rel. HATTON v. DYE, Warden.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

April 22, 1953

Habeas corpus proceeding to prevent extradition. The Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County at No. 2016 July Term, 1952 entered an order discharging relator, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania appealed. The Supreme Court, No. 50 March Term 1953, Chidsey, J., held that trial court had no jurisdiction to inquire into trial and conviction of relator or prison treatment accorded him in demanding state, even though violations of his constitutional rights were allegedly involved.

Order reversed with directions.

James F. Malone, Jr., Dist. Atty., Albert A. Fiok Asst. Dist. Atty., Pittsburgh, for appellant.

Albert Martin, Pittsburgh, for appellee.

Henry R. Smith, Jr., Owen B. McManus, Jr., Pittsburgh, amicus curiae.

Before STERN, C. J., and STEARNE, JONES, CHIDSEY, MUSMANNO and ARNOLD, JJ.

CHIDSEY, Justice.

This is an appeal by the Commonwealth from the order of the court below which discharged Everett Hatton on a writ of habeas corpus. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People has filed a brief amicus curiae.

On February 19, 1930 the relator, then seventeen years old, was convicted in Jones County, Mississippi, of assault with intent to rape and was sentenced to life imprisonment. On July 15, 1943 Hatton, a Negro, escaped from the state penitentiary in Parchman, Mississippi, and eventually settled in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, where he married and became the father of two children. On May 15 1952 he was arrested and charged by his wife with assault and battery. Subsequent to this arrest it was discovered that Hatton was a fugitive from justice from the State of Mississippi, and in due time a request for extradition was forwarded from the State of Mississippi to the Governor of Pennsylvania. On June 6, 1952 the Governor's warrant duly issued and was executed.

Thereafter relator filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Common Pleas Court of Allegheny County alleging that he was unlawfully restrained of his liberty in violation of his constitutional rights. He later filed a supplemental petition in which he admitted being the person demanded by the State of Mississippi but denied guilt of the charge for which he was there imprisoned. The supplemental petition also alleged that his trial was a mockery of justice; that he was not represented by counsel; that while he was in the state penitentiary in Mississippi he was the victim of cruel and inhuman treatment; and that if he were returned, his life would be in danger at the hands of his jailors.

At the hearing evidence of the circumstances of his conviction was introduced over the objection of the Commonwealth. Similarly, over objection appellee introduced evidence of physical punishment which he had received and which a part of the penal system in Mississippi. Two employes of the institution where relator had been incarcerated in Mississippi testified at the hearing on the petition, and on the basis of all of the testimony the trial judge found facts which supported the allegations in the petition, the prayer of which was granted and the relator ordered to be discharged.

The Commonwealth contends that the hearing judge exceeded the scope of permissible inquiry on a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in an extradition proceeding by considering the facts and circumstances surrounding relator's conviction and the prison treatment accorded him in the demanding state.

Relator concedes that he is the individual charged with the crime in Mississippi and does not contend that the extradition papers were not validly executed by the Governors of the respective states. However, relator's position is that the extraditions requisition from the demanding state affirmatively shows a denial of due process in that it recited both a plea of guilty and a jury trial.

This Court and the Supreme Court of the United States have recently and occasion to review the scope of inquiry on a petition for a writ of habeas corpus to prevent extradition. In Commonwealth ex rel. Henderson v. Baldi, 372 Pa 463, at page 466, 93 A.2d 458, at page 459, this Court, speaking through Mr. Justice Jones, said: ‘ * * * Under the Uniform Extradition Act of July 8, 1941, P.L. 288, 19 P.S. § 191.1 et seq., the extent of the proof required to sustain a State's requisition of another State for the extradition therefrom of a fugitive from justice is that the subject of the extradition is charged with a crime in the demanding State, that he was present in the demanding State at the time of the commission of the crime charged, that he is a fugitive from the demanding State and that the requisition papers are in order. See Commonwealth ex rel. Katz v. Philadelphia Prison Superintendent, 162 Pa.Super. 459, 460, 58 A.2d 366. * * *’ In that opinion the following was quoted from the recent decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Sweeney, Sheriff v. Woodall, 344 U.S. 86, 73 S.Ct. 139, 141:‘ Considerations...