Ex parte McBride
Decision Date | 27 January 1953 |
Docket Number | Cr. 2429 |
Citation | 254 P.2d 117,115 Cal.App.2d 538 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | Ex parte McBRIDE. |
Robert R. Harlan, Public Defender, Sacramento, for petitioner.
Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen. and Gail A. Strader, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondents.
This is an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by the public defender of Sacramento County on behalf of Wayne H. McBride.
The petition alleges that said Wayne H. McBride is being imprisoned and detained under a warrant issued by the governor of California upon demand by the governor of Texas for the extradition of said Wayne H. McBride as a fugitive from justice of the State of Texas.
The facts as shown by the petition and the return are substantially as follows: On the 25th of June, 1934, said Wayne H. McBride was sentenced for the crime of burglary for a period of two years by the Superior Court of Brown County, Brownwood, Texas. By virtue of said term petitioner was subsequently confined at the Central Farm, Sugarland, Texas, from where he escaped on May 9, 1935; after his escape petitioner was arrested by the Federal Bureau of Investigation at Seattle, Washington, as a fugitive from justice as a result of this escape; while he was held under arrest the Texas authorities were notified of his detention. After detention of a period of one week he was released by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, after being informed by them that the State of Texas was not going to extradite him and was going to do nothing about him as long as he stayed away from the State of Texas.
In the year 1941 said Wayne H. McBride was released from the Washington State Prison at Walla Walla, Washington, after having served five years. During the time that he was incarcerated the Texas authorities were again notified of where he was being detained; that the Texas authorities, although knowing of his whereabouts and having opportunity to extradite him from the State of Washington at the termination of his sentence, did apprehend him nor seek to extradite him from said state; in fact the Texas authorities did correspond with the Washington prison authorities and informed them that they would be unable to extradite the prisoner.
Upon his release from the Washington State Prison at Walla Walla said Wayne H. McBride continued to serve two and one-half years on parole under Washington authority. At all times the Washington authorities knew where he was and could contact him as could all others including the State of Texas, if they so desired. Wayne H. McBride was subsequently discharged from parole. During the time that he was on parole, at no time did the Texas authorities seek to extradite him.
During March of 1950 said Wayne H. McBride was sentenced to state prison from Riverside County on the charge of petty theft with a prior conviction; he has been discharged from said imprisonment as of December 21, 1952.
The petitioner alleges that the present restraint of the liberty of said Wayne H. McBride is illegal by virtue of the fact that the State of Texas has waived jurisdiction over the body of said Wayne H. McBride in failing to exercise its right to extradite him on occasions long past.
The extradition of fugitives from justice from one state to another is provided for in the Constitution of the United States and is giverned by a federal statute enacted to make effective the constitutional provision. Article IV, section 2, clause 2, of the Constitution of the United States provides that:
'A person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.'
Title 18, section 3182, U.S.C. (1946), the statute which implements the constitutional provision, has been substantially in its present form since 1793. It is as follows:
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stats. 822, eff. Sept. 1, 1948.)
Thus, one charged with crime in any state who flees from its justice to another state may be extradited by the latter. Under no other circumstances is extradition authorized.
It has therefore been consistently held, as was said in Johnson v. Matthews, 86 U.S.App.D.C. 376, 182 F.2d 677, that in a habeas corpus proceeding involving extradition the subjects of inquiry are: (a) whether a crime has been substantially charged in the demanding state; (b) whether the prisoner is the person so charged; (c) whether the prisoner was in the demanding state at the time of the crime.
While there is some authority to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Maldonado, In re
...which might justify the result that the petitioner would for practical purposes be absolved of his sentence. In re McBride, 115 Cal.App.2d 538, 541--543, 254 P.2d 117 (1953); May v. Sexton, supra, 35 Ill.2d at 588, 221 N.E.2d 283; Commonwealth ex rel. Bucksbarg v. Good, 162 Pa.Super. 557, 5......
-
In re Walton
...in discharging the prisoner upon the ground that the demanding state has waived its right to extradite him ____" (In re McBride (1953) 115 Cal.App.2d 538, 543, 254 P.2d 117; accord, People v. Superior Court (Lopez), supra, 130 Cal.App.3d at p. 783, 182 Cal. Rptr. 132; see also In re Gilchri......
-
Golden, In re
...a fugitive from justice and that he is substantially charged with a crime against the laws of the demanding state. (In re McBride (1953) 115 Cal.App.2d 538, 541, 254 P.2d 117; In re Backstron, supra, 98 Cal.App.2d at p. 501, 220 P.2d 742.) By postponing inquiry into the existence of probabl......
-
Overlade v. Wells
...of his sentence which could be satisfied only by actual service unless remitted by a duly constituted authority. Ex parte McBride, 1953, 115 Cal.App.2d 538, 254 P.2d 117; People ex rel. Barrett v. Dixon, 1944, 387 Ill. 420, 56 N.E.2d Thus, by operation of statute, 4 he was required to serve......