Hendricks v. Hindman
| Decision Date | 29 November 1993 |
| Citation | 17 F.3d 1436 |
| Parties | NOTICE: Although citation of unpublished opinions remains unfavored, unpublished opinions may now be cited if the opinion has persuasive value on a material issue, and a copy is attached to the citing document or, if cited in oral argument, copies are furnished to the Court and all parties. See General Order of |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Before LOGAN, SETH and BARRETT, Circuit Judges.
James A. Hendricks, having been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, appeals the district court's dismissal of his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. We exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 2253.
Hendricks was incarcerated in the Shawnee County Jail, Topeka, Kansas following his arrest on May 2, 1991 on a fugitive warrant from the State of Mississippi where he had been indicted for capital murder. Hendricks was served with a Kansas warrant for Fugitive from Justice pursuant to K.S.A. 22-2715 in the Shawnee County jail on May 6, 1991.
On August 1, 1991, ninety-one days following his arrest, the Kansas case based on the fugitive warrant was dismissed and subsequently refiled before Hendricks was released from the facility. Later that day, Hendricks filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
The next morning, August 2, 1991, the state court heard arguments on the petition and then took a recess to review the applicable law. During the court's recess, a governor's warrant for Hendricks arrived. When informed of the warrant, the court ruled that any failure to release Hendricks within the ninety-day limitation under Kansas law had been mooted by the filing of the governor's warrant. Hendricks was then placed into custody based on the governor's warrant.
Thereafter, Hendricks filed an additional petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which (1) incorporated the previous writ in order to raise the question of whether a remedy existed for his alleged two-day illegal detention beyond the statutory ninety-day period, and (2) attacked the validity of the governor's warrant, and the underlying extradition documents, including the indictment. Following the hearing on the second petition, the state court upheld the prior mootness decision and further held that the indictment was in the proper form and that there was compliance with the prerequisites to the governor's warrant.
Following exhaustion of his state appeals, Hendricks filed a petition for federal habeas corpus relief, which was denied. This appeal followed.
Hendricks phrases his two issues on appeal as: (1) whether an illegal detention may be exploited by the state in order to serve an extradition warrant, and (2) whether the district court erred in failing to grant Hendricks' petition for writ of habeas corpus because the supporting documents and the governor's warrant were insufficient.
Hendricks argues that the state improperly filed the second fugitive warrant to keep him incarcerated in order to facilitate service of the governor's warrant when it arrived. According to Hendricks, his remedy for the illegal detention of two days beyond the ninety-day limit allowed by Kansas law is immediate release.
Appellees argue that once the governor's warrant was served, any prior irregularities in the detention on the fugitive warrant were rendered moot. We agree.
The issue of whether the service of a governor's warrant has made any irregularities in Hendricks' detention on the fugitive warrant a moot issue is a question of law that we review de novo.
Section 22-2715 of the Kansas Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, provides:
If from the examination before the judge or magistrate it appears that the person held is the person charged with having committed the crime alleged and ... that he has fled from justice, the judge or magistrate must, by a warrant reciting the accusation, commit him to the county jail for such a time not exceeding thirty days and specified in the warrant, as will enable the arrest of the accused to be made under a warrant of the governor on a requisition of the executive authority of the state having jurisdiction of the offense, unless the accused give bail ... or until he shall be legally discharged.
Section 22-2717 provides:
If the accused is not arrested under warrant of the governor by the expiration of the time specified in the warrant or bond, a judge or magistrate may discharge him or may recommit him for a further period not to exceed sixty days, or a judge or magistrate may again take bail for his appearance and surrender ... but within a period not to exceed sixty days after the date of such new bond.
In In re Habeas Corpus Application of Sanders, 704 P.2d 386 (1985), the Kansas Court of Appeals held that prior irregularities were moot where the accused had been held for five days beyond the ninety-day limit before service of the governor's warrant. In that case, the petitioner had not filed his petition for a writ of habeas corpus until after he had been served with the governor's warrant. Id. at 387. Hendricks argues that Sanders should not apply because the timing of the filing of the habeas corpus petition is significant and distinguishes that case from his own. However, in Sanders, as here, the legal cause for detaining the petitioner arose before the final action in the habeas corpus proceeding.
For example, even assuming...
To continue reading
Request your trial