Grant v. Shobe
| Decision Date | 22 July 1974 |
| Parties | In the Matter of the Application of John Okiely Grant for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. John Okiely GRANT, Appellant, v. Joe SHOBE, Clackamas County Sheriff, Respondent. |
| Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
Arthur B. Knauss, Milwaukie, argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant.
Jim G. Russell, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Lee Johnson, Atty. Gen., and W. Michael Gillette, Sol. Gen., Salem.
Before SCHWAB, C.J., and FOLEY and THORNTON, JJ.
This is an appeal from an order 'denying' a writ of habeas corpus by which the plaintiff sought to challenge an extradition warrant on the ground that the documents forwarded by the demanding state, California, were defective under both state and federal law. 1 Assuming, without deciding, that the federal extradition statute is relevant, we find that its terms as well as the terms of the Oregon statute have been met, and that extradition is proper.
The federal extradition statute provides:
'Whenever the executive authority of any State * * * demands any person as a fugitive from justice, of the executive authority of any State * * * to which such person has fled, and produces a copy of an indictment found or an affidavit made before a magistrate of any State * * * charging the person demanded with having committed * * * felony * * * certified as authentic by the governor * * * of the State * * * from whence the person so charged has fled, the executive authority of the State * * * to which such person has fled shall cause him to be arrested and secured * * *.' 18 U.S.C. § 3182.
Oregon sets out the form a demand for rendition shall take in ORS 133.753:
'No demand for the extradition of a person charged with crime in another state shall be recognized by the Governor unless in writing and accompanied by a copy of an indictment found or by an information supported by affidavit in the state having jurisdiction of the crime, or by a copy of an affidavit made before a magistrate there, together with a copy of any warrant which was issued thereupon * * *.'
The documents forwarded to the Governor of Oregon include a written extradition request and certification of authenticity by the Governor of California, a certified copy of a felony complaint charging plaintiff with escape, and affidavits executed by police officers some three weeks after the execution of the felony complaint setting out facts...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Whelan v. Noelle
...Ault v. Purcell, 16 Or.App. 664, 666, 519 P.2d 1285, cert. denied 419 U.S. 858, 95 S.Ct. 106, 42 L.Ed.2d 92 (1974); Grant v. Shobe, 18 Or.App. 188, 190, 524 P.2d 550 (1974). Respondent also cites Michigan v. Doran, 439 U.S. 282, 292-93, and n. 2, 99 S.Ct. 530, 537, and n. 2, 58 L.Ed.2d 521 ......
-
State ex rel. Sieloff v. Golz
...of U.S. Revised Statutes, section 5278, 18 U.S.C.A. sec. 662, and is therefore void." (at 188, 203 P.2d at 632) Grant v. Shobe, 18 Or.App. 188, 524 P.2d 550 (1974), held that there need be no judicial determination of probable cause in the demanding state prior to It seems clear, therefore,......
-
State ex rel. Bliss v. Mason
...and Al J. Laue, Sol. Gen., Salem. Before SCHWAB, C. J., and THORNTON, TANZER and BUTTLER, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Grant v. Shobe, 18 Or.App. 188, 524 P.2d 550 (1974); Ault/Gilbert v. Purcell, 16 Or.App. 664, 519 P.2d 1285, rev. den., cert. den. 419 U.S. 858, 95 S.Ct. 106, 42 L.Ed.2d 92 (1......