Ex parte Langley

• Decision Date: 21 May 1958
• Docket Number: No. A-12586,A-12586
• Citation: 325 P.2d 1094
• Parties: In the Matter of the Habeas Corpus of William LANGLEY, Petitioner, R. B. Travers, Agent of Adult Authority, Department of Corrections, State of California and Bob Turner, Sheriff of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, Respondents.
• Court: United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Page 1094

325 P.2d 1094

In the Matter of the Habeas Corpus of William LANGLEY, Petitioner R. B. Travers, Agent of Adult Authority, Department of Corrections, State of California and Bob Turner Sheriff of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, Respondents.

No. A-12586.

Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma.

May 21, 1958.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. In habeas corpus proceedings the burden is upon petitioner to prove the grounds upon which he relies for his release, and the unsupported statements of a petitioner do not meet the requirements of the proof.

2. In habeas corpus proceedings, this court will not give weight or consideration to written statements attached to a response unless verified.

3. Laws of other states are facts to be established by competent evidence and courts of Oklahoma cannot take judicial notice thereof. 12 O.S.A. § 484.

4. Academically, if by the laws of a demanding state the agents or designated authorities of such state may expressly or impliedly waive jurisdiction over one of its parolees to a sister state so as to preclude it from thereafter extraditing such parolee from such sister state, such parolee seeking release from custody of the sister state holding petitioner for such demanding state, must plead and prove the laws of the demanding state, and present supporting evidence to show that jurisdiction has actually been waived to be entitled to release.

5. In the absence of pleading and proof of laws of a sister state, including general statutes, laws are presumed to be the same as the laws of Oklahoma (12 O.S.A. § 484, as amended laws 1953, p. 53, § 8) and we find no statutory authority in Oklahoma or decisions of this court whereby this state would lose jurisdiction to extradite a parolee who had willingly or unwillingly left this state with the knowledge of his parole officer.

6. Evidence at hearing on petition for writ of habeas corpus examined and found to show that petitioner while on parole in California came to Oklahoma without permission of the parole authorities, and while here committed a felony and returned to California, where he was arrested by the F. B. I. for violation of Section 1073, Title 18 U.S.Code, Flight to Avoid Prosecution, was incarcerated in the city jail of San Francisco, the Federal charges dismissed, and petitioner signed a waiver of extradition to Oklahoma; that while in the city jail he was visited by his California parole officer, but his parole was not revoked by the Adult Authority, Department of Corrections, State of California, until January 13, 1953, several days after petitioner was returned to Oklahoma, where he was convicted and sentenced to the Oklahoma penitentiary for a term of ten years; that California immediately placed a hold order for his return to California; that petitioner was released from the Oklahoma penitentiary on February 12, 1958 when he was arrested on a warrant on foreign requisition signed by the Governor of Oklahoma for return of petitioner to California.

7. Where a convicted prisoner in another state is there paroled, and voluntarily or involuntarily comes into this State, and thereafter his parole is revoked by proper authorities of the former state, the prisoner then has the status of an escaped convict, and a fugitive from justice from the former State, and if apprehended in this State may upon requisition be returned to that state.

8. The only prerequisites to interstate extradition are that the person sought to be extradited be substantially charged with crime against demanding State's laws, and a fugitive from justice. 18 U.S.C.A. § 662; U.S.C.A.Const. art. 4, § 2, cl. 2.

9. Whether person sought to be extradited is fugitive from justice is fact question to be resolved by chief executive of asylum state, and his judgment on such question is not subject to judicial impeachment by habeas corpus unless it conclusively appears that such person cannot be a fugitive from justice under federal law, or the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, 22 O.S.A. § 1141.1 et seq., or particular laws of the demanding state.

10. Evidence and requisition papers found to support act of Governor of Oklahoma in granting extradition of petitioner to California.

Original proceeding in which William A. Langley, petitioner, seeks his release from custody of the respondents by habeas corpus. Writ denied.

Hill & May, and James M. May, McAlester, for petitioner.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., Sam H. Lattimore and Owen J. Watts, Asst. Attys. Gen., Ewing C. Sadler, County Atty., and Ben Choate, Jr., Asst. County Atty., Pittsburg County, McAlester, Okl., for respondents.

POWELL, Judge.

This is an original habeas corpus proceeding in which petitioner, who is now being detained by the respondent, Bob Turner, Sheriff of Oklahoma County, pursuant to extradition proceedings initiated by the State of California, seeks his release from custody of that official.

With the exception of one important matter to be pointed out, we conclude from an examination of the petition, response and transcript of evidence heard by the district court of Pittsburg County, Oklahoma and admitted herein, which court previously denied a writ of habeas corpus, that there is no dispute as to the basic facts involved in petitioner's detention.

On November 15, 1947 petitioner was convicted in the superior court of the State of California for the crime of armed robbery, and was sentenced to serve an indeterminate sentence of five years to life in the San Quentin California State Penitentiary. On June 6, 1952 petitioner was paroled from such institution by the Adult Authority Department of Corrections of the State of California. The parole agreement signed by William A. Langley on June 5, 1952 contained some fifteen provisions concerning the parolee's conduct while on parole, the violation of any of which would make the parole subject to revocation. The parolee agreed: 'I hereby waive extradition to the State of California from any State in the Union and from any teritory or country outside the continental United States, and also agree that I will not contest any effort to return me to the United States or to the State of California. I have read, or had read to me, the foregoing conditions of my parole, and I fully understand them and I agree to abide by and strictly follow them, and I fully understand the penalties involved should I in any manner violate the foregoing conditions.' (Emphasis supplied.)

Petitioner admits that he violated the parole agreement in a number of respects, one of which was on December 11, 1952 leaving California without permission of the proper authorities, and going to Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, but returning to California on December 24, 1952; that on December 31, 1952 petitioner was apprehended and arrested and taken into custody by the F.B.I. authorities on an illegal flight warrant in California and incarcerated in the San Francisco, California, city jail; that on the same day the Federal complaint was dismissed and the San Francisco Police Department held petitioner for arrival of officers from the State of Oklahoma; that on January 7, 1953 petitioner was turned over by the city jail officials of San Francisco to the Oklahoma officers to be brought back to Oklahoma to face a charge of robbery with firearms in Oklahoma County. The party immediately got on its way to Oklahoma.

On January 13, 1953 the petitioner's parole was revoked by the Adult Authority, Department of Corrections, State of California; March 16, 1953 petitioner was tried before a jury in Oklahoma County and sentenced to serve a period of ten years in the Oklahoma State Penitentiary for the crime of robbery with firearms; February 12, 1958 petitioner was released from the Oklahoma State Penitentiary, having served his time, but a hold order having previously been filed by the California authorities, petitioner was delivered into the custody of the sheriff of Pittsburg County to await the arrival of a California officer pursuant to a warrant of arrest issued by the Adult Authority, Department of Corrections of the State of California, and thereafter petitioner was arrested under warrants of the Governors of the State of California and the State of Oklahoma, and petitioner, as stated, sought his release by writ of habeas corpus from the district court of Pittsburg County, which was denied. Then followed application to this court, and hearing was had and the petitioner ordered confined to the Oklahoma County jail until the matter could be determined.

On March 19, 1958 the Attorney General filed a supplemental response, attached to which was letter dated March 12, 1958 from the Department of Corrections, Division of Adult Paroles, Sacramento, California, along with the original letter dated March 12, 1958 from the Special Agent in charge of the F.B.I. at San Francisco to the Division of Adult Paroles and also letter dated March 11, 1958 from the Chief of Police of San Francisco to Division of Adult Paroles, all concerning the facts of delivery of petitioner to the Oklahoma officers.

Petitioner as grounds for release asserts in his petition, and argues in his brief: 'Your petitioner maintains and contends that the surrendering of this petitioner by the authorities of the State of California to the Sheriff of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, was a waiver of the State of California's jurisdiction and right to demand the return of this petitioner to the said State of California, because of the said State of California's failure to exercise their authority while petitioner was detained and confined within its jurisdiction and with knowledge that this petitioner was a parole violator at the time they voluntarily surrendered this petitioner to the Oklahoma authorities as aforesaid, for the purpose of being transported back to Oklahoma under legal process, to there answer for the crime of robbery with fire arms, as aforesaid.'

The only basis in the record to support the proposition that the...