Hammond v. State ex rel. Davis
| Decision Date | 26 February 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 5311,5311 |
| Citation | 424 S.W.2d 861,244 Ark. 186 |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
| Parties | Carlond HAMMOND, Petitioner, v. STATE of Arkansas ex rel. John DAVIS, Sheriff, Respondent. |
Catlett & Henderson, Little Rock, and Darrell Hickman, Searcy, for petitioner.
Joe Purcell, Little Rock, Atty. Gen., R. D. Smith III, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
This is a review of a refusal by the Circuit Court of White County to grant Carlond Hammond (Petitioner) a Writ of Habeas Corpus whereby he sought to evade extradition to the State of Louisiana. A brief statement of facts from which stems this litigation is set out below.
On May 30, 1967 the Governor of Louisiana signed requisition papers directed to the Governor of Arkansas asking for the return of Petitioner who was charged in 1964 with the crime of stealing $25,000 in Louisiana. On August 2, 1967 a hearing was held on the matter in the office of the Governor of Arkansas, and one week later the Governor of Arkansas issued a warrant to have Petitioner arrested by the sheriff of White County and placed in jail. Thereupon Petitioner applied for a Writ of Habeas Corpus in the Circuit Court of said county to obtain his freedom. A hearing was had, and on September 6, 1967 the trial judge denied the petition and remanded Petitioner to the custody of the sheriff of White County.
On September 22, 1967 Petitioner filed this Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, and now urges three grounds for a reversal of the trial court.
One. It is first contended 'the Governor of Arkansas improperly delegated all responsibility for determining the validity of the extradition papers'.
We find no merit in this contention which is based on the fact that Bob Scott (an agent or employee of the Governor) examined the requisition papers and found them adequate before the Governor signed the warrant of arrest.
Ark.Stat.Ann. § 43--3002 (Repl.1964) provides that it is the duty of the Governor to have arrested and delivered to another state any person charged in that state with a felony who has fled from justice. Section 43--3004 provides that the Governor may call upon the Attorney General to investigate or assist in investigating the 'demand' and report to him. Section 43--3007 provides that if the Governor decides the 'demand' should be complied with, 'he shall sign a warrant of arrest. * * *'
We find nothing in the above statutes which forces a conclusion that the Governor must personally make the investigation or have it made by the Attorney General. It must be recognized that a governor has the right to rely on his agents or employees to make investigations and report their findings, and to rely thereon. This is consistent with his right to call on the Attorney General for assistance and advice if he deems it necessary. Obviously the legality of the Governor's action in signing the warrant of arrest in this case is not dependent on the source of the information upon which he acted.
Two. It is next argued that 'The documents of 'demand' do not show probable cause. * * *'
Demand documents refer here to certain documents executed in Louisiana setting out the facts relative to the accusations against Petitioner. It is necessary therefore to set out below a brief summary of these documents.
(a) Morris Lucia who is a resident of Louisiana, in an affidavit sworn to before a District Judge of said state, stated, in essence: On May 13, 1964 Joe Fassulo, whom I knew, introduced me to Carlond Hammond (Petitioner) who told me he knew a 'person' who had $200,000 in bills of large denominations and desired to exchange them (at a 40% discount) for bills of smaller denominations; Petitioner stated the deal was legitimate since the 'person' had previously been in trouble with the revenue agents and feared circulation of the large bills might renew the trouble; a week later I was informed by Joe that Petitioner had arranged for me to meet the 'person' at a hotel in Opelousas to effect an exchange of bills; Joe and I went to the hotel where I was told the 'person' would not negotiate personally with me; Therefore, I gave Joe $25,000 to deliver to the 'person'; About twenty minutes later Joe returned and said Petitioner took the money and ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rayburn v. State, 3 Div. 894
...also Wellington v. South Dakota, 413 F.Supp. 151 (D.S.D.1976); Montague v. Smedley, 557 P.2d 774 (Alaska 1976); Hammond v. State ex rel. Davis, 244 Ark. 186, 424 S.W.2d 861, cert. denied, 393 U.S. 839, 89 S.Ct. 116, 21 L.Ed.2d 109 (1968); Pippin v. Leach, 188 Colo. 385, 534 P.2d 1193 (1975)......
-
People ex rel. Schank v. Gerace
...W.Va., at 579, 371 S.E.2d, at 76; Stone v. State of Nevada, supra, 85 Nev., at 64-65, 450 P.2d, at 138; Hammond v. State ex rel. Davis, supra, 244 Ark., at 190, 424 S.W.2d, at 863; Elliott v. Johnson, supra, at 337). New allegations or proof will be entertained even where the facts were kno......
-
Thompson v. Dunlap, 5--4408
... ... Moore, 196 Ark. 667, 119 S.W.2d 499; Arkansas State Racing Commission v. Southland Racing Corp., 226 Ark. 995, 295 S.W.2d 617; ... ...
-
Cadle v. Cauthron, CR
...were to be construed liberally rather than strictly as they are in criminal statutes. We reached the same result in Hammond v. State, 244 Ark. 186, 424 S.W.2d 861 (1968), and Harris v. State, 259 Ark. 187, 532 S.W.2d 423 (1976). The case of Bolden v. State, 262 Ark. 718, 561 S.W.2d 281 (197......