Hughes v. Waters

• Decision Date: 21 February 1973
• Docket Number: No. 55563,55563
• Citation: 204 N.W.2d 599
• Parties: Larry M. HUGHES, Appellant, v. Russell E. WATERS, Appellee.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

Page 599

204 N.W.2d 599

Larry M. HUGHES, Appellant, v. Russell E. WATERS, Appellee.

No. 55563.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Feb. 21, 1973.

Gene W. Glenn, Ottumwa, for appellant.

Richard C. Turner, Atty. Gen., Fred M. Haskins, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Samuel O. Erhardt, County Atty., for appellee.

Heard before MOORE, C.J., and LeGRAND, REES, UHLENHOPP and HARRIS, JJ.

LeGRAND, Justice.

This appeal seeks to reverse the trial court's order annulling a writ of habeas corpus by which plaintiff hopes to defeat the state of California's efforts to extradite him to face pending criminal charges there. The defendant is the sheriff of Wapello County, who took plaintiff into custody on a governor's warrant of arrest. On the scant record before us, we must reverse and order plaintiff discharged from custody.

The case was submitted on the pleadings and four written exhibits. No other evidence was produced by either party. The exhibits were: (1) the governor's warrant of arrest; (2) an instrument designated 'Felony Warrant of Arrest' issued out of the Municipal Court of San Diego, California; (3) copy of a Criminal Complaint from the same court; and (4) certificate of the Governor of California appointing an agent to take plaintiff into custody and return him to the state of California. Plaintiff says these were the instruments upon which the governor's warrant was issued. There is nothing in the record to suggest otherwise.

Before discussing the merits, we reiterate some of the general principles governing consideration of extradition cases as announced in Evans v. Rosenberger, 181 N.W.2d 152 (Iowa 1970), and Hill v. Houck, 195 N.W.2d 692 (Iowa 1972). Our review is not de novo and we are bound by the trial court's findings for which there is substantial evidentiary support; we consider only assigned errors and review only those matters properly raised and preserved below; there are only two questions to be decided--(1) has the accused been substantially charged with a crime under the laws of the demanding state and (2) is he a fugitive from that state; the governor's warrant is prima facie evidence the accused is subject to extradition; and plaintiff has the burden of overcoming the presumption raised by the governor's warrant by clear and satisfactory evidence.

Extradition proceedings are regulated under chapter 759, The Code, 1971. Only by compliance with its terms may one charged with a crime be involuntarily returned to the demanding state by the state where he has taken up asylum. We have liberally interpreted the statute and have held it should not be defeated by technical defects or omissions. We have also held the vital papers are those from the demanding state. Evans v. Rosenberger, supra, 181 N.W.2d at 157. However, this does not excuse disregard of the clear provisions of the statute.

The conclusion we reach in this case is dictated by what can only be called a procedural disaster. Apparently defendant now realizes this, for the attorney general (who appears for defendant since the state is the real party in interest) attempted to repair the case by filing with the clerk of this court--long after trial of the case--the requisition and supporting papers from the governor of California upon which it is claimed the extradition warrant was Really based. Much of defendant's argument, both written and oral, urges the sufficiency of hese papers to justify the extradition order.

Of course, we refuse to consider any such 'evidence.' Conceding that it met all the statutory requirements of chapter 759--as a cursory examination reveals--we are not privileged to go outside the record. W...