Ex parte Wallace, 31569
| Decision Date | 15 February 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 31569,31569 |
| Citation | 227 P.2d 737,38 Wn.2d 67 |
| Parties | Ex parte WALLACE. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Dorsey, Ruff & Morton, Tacoma, for appellant.
Smith Troy, Lawrence K. McDonel, Olympia, for respondent.
On March 21, 1950, the governor of this state issued a warrant of extradition against the relator, honoring a requisition by the governor of the state of Florida. Relator was taken into custody on the warrant, and, thereafter, made application to the superior court of Pierce county for a writ of habeas corpus. He does not contend that he is not the person named in the requisition, or that he was committed no offense against the state of Florida, but insists that Florida has forfeited any right it may have had to extradite him for the reason that its penal system subjects prisoners to cruel and inhuman treatment. He further alleges that the sheriff of St. Lucie county, from whence he escaped, had threatened him in particular. A demurrer to the petition was sustained, the petition was dismissed, and the relator appeals.
Interstate rendition is a proceeding resting in Federal law, and the duty of the state in such matter is prescribed in Art. IV, § 2, cl. 2, of the Federal constitution. In re Roberts, 186 Wash. 13, 56 P.2d 703. The only prerequisites to extradition from one state to another are that the person sought to be extradited is substantially charged with a crime against the laws of the demanding state, and that he is a fugitive from justice. Brewer v. Goff, 10 Cir., 138 F.2d 710; McNichols v. Pease, 207 U.S. 100, 28 S.Ct. 58, 52 L.Ed. 121. It is not contended that the extradition papers are not in order, but relator seems to base his position on the ground that the courts of the asylum state can review the penal system of Florida and determine how the governor should exercise his discretion.
The reason for the issuance of the warrant by the governor is not a proper subject of judicial inquiry. Ex parte Moyer, 12 Idaho 250, 85 P. 897, 12 L.R.A.,N.S., 227. After the above prerequisites are met, the governor's discretion is absolute. Nor can the courts of the asylum state determine the constitutional validity of phases of penal action by the state of Florida in respect to the fugitive. Johnson v. Mattews, 86 U.S.App.D.C. 376, 182 F.2d 677. Since the regularity of the proceedings leading to the governor's action is not questioned, there is nothing here for this court to review.
The relator relies upon Harper v. Wall, D.C., 85 F.Supp. 783, and Johnson v. Dye, 3 Cir., 175 F.2d 250. Without commenting upon whether or not they suppor his position,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ex parte Cohen
...to do so. Drew v. Thaw, 235 U.S. 432, 35 S.Ct. 137, 138, 59 L.Ed. 302 (1914); People v. Murray, supra; Ex parte Wallace, 38 Wash.2d 67, 227 P.2d 737, 738 (Wash.Sup.Ct.1951); Ex parte Moyer, 12 Idaho 250, 85 P. 897, 12 L.R.A.,N.S., 227 (Sup.Ct.1906). The executive warrant of a Governor is bu......
-
State of South Dakota v. Brown
...Taylor ), revd. on other grounds 281 N.Y. 441, 24 N.E.2d 117; Carpenter v. Lord (1918) 88 Or. 128, 171 P. 577, 578; Ex Parte Wallace (1951) 38 Wash.2d 67, 227 P.2d 737, 738.) The California law on the point was established very early by a case which, although it was decided before both Denn......
-
Vetsch v. Sheriff of Spokane County
...In re Maldonado, 304 N.E.2d 419, 421 (Mass.1973); Ault v. Purcell, 16 Or.App. 664, 519 P.2d 1285, 1286 (1974).7 See In re Wallace, 38 Wash.2d 67, 68--69, 227 P.2d 737 (1951); Thorp v. Metzger, 77 Wash. 62, 65, 137 P. 330 (1913); State v. Pritchett, 12 Wash.App. 673, 675, 530 P.2d 1348 (1975......
-
State ex rel. Boutwell v. Coughlin
...from justice. In re Wheeler, 46 Wash.2d 277, 280 P.2d 673 (1955); In re Varona, 38 Wash.2d 833, 232 P.2d 923 (1951); In re Wallace, 38 Wash.2d 67, 227 P.2d 737 (1951). See also In re Jeffries, 15 Wash.App. 302, 548 P.2d 594 (1976), Rev. denied 87 Wash.2d 1009 In the instant case Boutwell do......