Ex Parte Casemento.

Decision Date25 October 1946
PartiesEx parte CASEMENTO.
CourtNew Jersey Court of Common Pleas

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Habeas corpus proceeding by Nicholas Casemento, a parolee, to obtain release from custody of Pennsylvania parole officers in the State of New Jersey.

Application denied.

Duane E. Minard and William Caruso, both of Newark, for the state.

Doane K. Regan, of Newark, for defendant.

HARTSHORNE, Judge.

One Nicholas Casemento is in the custody of Pennsylvania parole officers, in the State of New Jersey, as a parolee, permitted to leave Pennsylvania on parole, under the ‘Interstate Compact for the Supervision of Out-of-State Parolees and Probationers', New Jersey, R.S. 2:199-13 N.J.S.A.; Pennsylvania Laws 1937, No. 415, p. 2086, 61 P.S. §§ 321, 322; New York Laws 1936, Chap. 388, Correction Law, Consol.Laws, c. 43, § 224, who has violated the conditions of his parole. He applies for a writ of habeas corpus, to test the right of custody of these officers, with whom the authorities of both New Jersey and New York are in fact cooperating. No question is raised as to the constitutionality of the above compact, to which not only the state of New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania are party, but some three-fourths of the rest of the states of the Union as well, such constitutionality having already been passed on in all aspects in the case of Ex parte Tenner, 20 Cal.2d 670, 128 P.2d 338, which decision was thereafter impliedly affirmed by the United States Supreme Court. 314 U.S. 585, 62 S.Ct. 409, 86 L.Ed. 473; Id., 317 U.S. 597, 63 S.Ct. 151, 87 L.Ed. 488. The objection raised by the applicant is as to the binding effect of the waiver agreement, signed by him, as a condition of his being paroled from custody by Pennsylvania.

After Casemento was convicted and imprisoned in Pennsylvania, he applied for a parole, and to be granted the privilege of leaving Pennsylvania, to go to Jamestown, New York, to live there with his mother. At the time of granting his parole application, and permitting him to reside in New York State, ‘to be supervised by the New York parole authorities,’ the Pennsylvania authorities required Casemento to execute a written agreement that ‘in consideration of being granted a parole * * * and especially being granted the privilege to leave the State of Pennsylvania and go to New York State,’ he would not only live with his mother in New York State, and abide by the parole regulations of both states, but ‘return at any time to the State of Pennsylvania when instructed by New York State, and (4) That I hereby do waive extradition to the State of Pennsylvania, and also agree that I will not contest any effort to return me to the State of Pennsylvania. (5) Failure to comply with the above will be deemed to be a violation of the terms and conditions of parole for which I may be returned to the State of Pennsylvania.’

Thereafter Casemento was paroled, went to New York State, but shortly violated his above agreement, by going to New Jersey, where he was arrested on a new charge. On being advised of his arrest, the Pennsylvania authorities applied to the New Jersey authorities for his return to Pennsylvania, under the compact and the prisoner's above agreement, New York joining in such application.

The beneficient purpose, both to the prisoner and the public, of the Interstate Compact for the Supervision of Out-of-State Parolees and Probationers, is clear. The rehabilitation of a convicted man obviously benefits all concerned. If without danger to the public, this rehabilitation can, of course, be accomplished better without, than within, prison walls, and through employment in the neighborhood of one's family, rather than in idleness amongst strangers, these being the very conditions stated by the compact. Furthermore, retaining the state's supervision over the prisoner's activities, wherever he may go, is clearly helpful, both to the public and the prisoner. This the compact alone can satisfactorily secure by making each state a supervising agent for the other. Indeed, not only the practical purpose of the compact, but the simplicity of its procedure, as to both the supervision of the parolee or probationer and his possible return, are clear.

Turning to the above waiver agreement, signed by the applicant, we must bear in mind that the time-worn procedure for returning from one state to another, one wanted by the authorities of that other, is ordinarily by the technical procedure of extradition, under the Federal Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 10, the provisions of the Federal Statute, 18 U.S.C.A. § 662, and those of the Uniform Extradition Act, as enacted in New Jersey R.S. 2:185-6 et seq., as amended P.L.1940, Chap. 259, N.J.S.A. 2:185-6 et seq. We must further bear in mind that, in any such removal, there are three parties involved, the demanding or sending state (here Pennsylvania), the asylum or receiving state (here New Jersey, and, under the unusual circumstances of this case, New...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Klock, In re
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • July 12, 1982
    ... ...         A Texas decision catalogues and discusses the various extradition waiver cases (Ex Parte Johnson (Tex.Cr.App.1980) 610 S.W.2d 757). Discussing the extradition act, where language similar to the third paragraph of Penal Code section ... Smith, 31 Wash.2d 52, 195 P.2d 112 (1948) cert. den. 335 U.S. 834, 69 S.Ct. 24, 93 L.Ed. 387; Ex parte Casemento, 24 N.J.Misc. 345, 49 A.2d 437, 439-440 (Ct. Common Pleas 1946).) ...         All of the above find authority for giving effect to the prior ... ...
  • State v. Maglio
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court
    • February 4, 1983
    ...waived his extradition right as a condition of parole, was not entitled to an extradition hearing in New Jersey. Ex Parte Casemento, 24 N.J.Misc. 345, 49 A.2d 437 (C.P.1945). That waiver was not violative of defendant's constitutional right or statutory rights under the Uniform Act. Basic t......
  • Pierson v. Grant
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • December 22, 1975
    ... ... California Adult Authority, 510 F.2d 58, 61 (8th Cir. 1975); White v. Hall, 15 Md.App. 446, 291 A.2d 694, 696 (1972); Ex parte Casemento, 24 N.J.Misc. 345, 49 A.2d 437, 439--40 (Ct. Common Pleas 1946). We find no basis for concluding that a pre-release waiver of extradition ... ...
  • Ex parte Johnson
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • December 23, 1980
    ... ... "Advance waivers of extradition in circumstances similar to those of this case have been upheld in a number of cases. See, e. g., Forester v. California Adult Authority, 510 F.2d 58, 61 (8th Cir., 1975); White v. Hall, 15 Md.App. 446, 291 A.2d 694, 696 (1972); Ex parte Casemento, 24 N.J.Misc. 345, 49 A.2d 437-439-40 (Ct. Common Pleas 1946). We find no basis for concluding that a pre-release waiver of extradition executed as a condition of parole must conform to a procedure which by its own terms is non-exclusive." ...         It can thus be seen that the trial ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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