Cramer v. State

• Decision Date: 11 June 1985
• Docket Number: 8 Div. 299
• Citation: 480 So.2d 13
• Parties: Leon Artemus CRAMER v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals

Page 13

480 So.2d 13

Leon Artemus CRAMER v. STATE.

8 Div. 299.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

June 11, 1985.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 20, 1985.

Certiorari Denied Nov. 22, 1985 Alabama Supreme Court 84-1276.

John L. Sims, Hartselle, for appellant.

Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., and Tommie Wilson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

TAYLOR, Judge.

In this extradition case, the State of Tennessee seeks the return of appellant Leon Artemus Cramer to face a charge of assault with intent to murder. Appellant has filed a petition to test the validity of the proceeding by petition for writ of habeas corpus and he appeals from the denial of that writ.

I

Appellant first contends that the "rendition warrant" is insufficient and defective in that it does not recite that it is accompanied by an authenticated copy of an indictment or affidavit. In fact, it was accompanied by an affidavit. Our cases permit the executive authority to look at the other documents presented with the warrant. Martin v. State, 50 Ala.App. 1, 276 So.2d 149 (1973); Harris v. State, 257 Ala. 3, 60 So.2d 266 (1951); Lofton v. State, 46 Ala.App. 229, 239 So.2d 901 (1970); Hagamaker v. State, 354 So.2d 851 (Ala.Cr.App.1978). Appellant's argument on this point is not well taken. Even if the warrant is defective, it can be cured if accompanied by allied papers which when taken together with it show that the executive of the asylum state did in fact have before him the necessary jurisdictional matters. Tingley v. State, 36 Ala.App. 665, 63 So.2d 712 (1952), writ denied, 258 Ala. 436, 63 So.2d 722, cert. denied, 346 U.S. 837, 74 S.Ct. 55, 98 L.Ed. 358 (1953).

II

Second, appellant contends that it must be alleged that the person sought to be extradited was present in the demanding state on the date of the crime. Code of Alabama 1975, § 15-9-33, does contain that literal requirement.

The United States Supreme Court in Michigan v. Doran, 439 U.S. 282, 99 S.Ct. 530, 58 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978), ruled that:

"Once the asylum state's governor has granted extradition, such grant being prima facie evidence that the constitutional and statutory requirements have been met, a court of that state considering release on habeas corpus can do no more than decide whether the petitioner has been charged with a crime in the demanding state, whether he is the person named in the extradition request, and whether he is a fugitive."

As we stated in Raley v. State, 455 So.2d 203 (Ala.Cr.App.1984):

"The determination of probable cause is a matter left in the hands of the judicial system of the demanding state; the judicial system of the asylum state is without power to review that determination.

"The indictment and arrest...