Lewis v. Boone, AH-168

CourtCourt of Appeal of Florida (US)
Citation418 So.2d 319
Docket NumberNo. AH-168,AH-168
PartiesDonald LEWIS a/k/a Donald Morris Rowell, Appellant, v. Eddie BOONE, as Sheriff of Leon County, Florida, Appellee.
Decision Date29 July 1982

Glenna Joyce Reeves, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Gregory C. Smith, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

WENTWORTH, Judge.

The appellant/petitioner appeals the circuit court's denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus asserting detention in violation of § 941.14 et seq., Florida Statutes. 1 We affirm.

Petitioner was arrested on August 13, 1981, 2 pursuant to the cited statute. On September 15, 1981, thirty two days after his initial arrest, he was served with a governor's warrant ordering his extradition to Nevada. At the hearing on the petition his attorney argued that the detention for more than thirty days, without recommitment, was illegal and that he was therefore entitled to immediate release. In rebuttal the state attorney introduced the requisition warrant and the governor's warrant as evidence of petitioner's lawful confinement. The trial court found that the warrants of extradition were facially proper and denied the petition.

Section 941.14 requires an accused to be promptly brought before a judge or magistrate, who may commit him for a period up to thirty days. That detention permits time for the procedures required for production of a governor's warrant. If the prisoner is not arrested under the governor's warrant within thirty days, he may be recommitted for up to sixty more days. § 941.17, Florida Statutes (1981). Since appellant was neither arrested within thirty days nor recommitted under § 941.17, he contends he is unlawfully confined and entitled to immediate release.

This appears to be a case of first impression in Florida, although we find some guidance in State v. Fulkerson, 300 So.2d 276 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974). In Fulkerson, the defendant had escaped from jail four days after he was served with an untimely governor's warrant. As a defense to the escape charge, Fulkerson argued that because he was held beyond the thirty-day limit in § 941.15, and was not recommitted under § 941.17, he was not in lawful custody at the time of the escape. The court rejected this argument, finding that once the governor's warrant had been served he was clearly in lawful confinement, which mooted the question of whether escape charges would otherwise be proper.

Other states have considered more particularly the issue raised by this case; i.e., whether a prisoner is entitled to habeas corpus relief when his arrest under the governor's warrant is untimely. Although there is some support for appellant's position, 3 we find that the greater weight of authority more logically holds that upon substantial compliance with the Uniform Interstate Extradition Act, when the prisoner has in fact been arrested under the governor's warrant prior to the habeas proceedings, he is not entitled to relief. See Cohen v. Warden, 252 F.Supp. 666 (D.Md.1966); Quackenbush v. Fairchild, 291 Pa.Super. 358, 435 A.2d 1266 (1981); Quackenbush v. Fairchild, 291 Pa.Super. 209, 435 A.2d 872 (1981); Stynchcombe v. Whitley, 240 Ga. 776, 242 S.E.2d 720 (1978). We therefore conclude accordingly that in the circumstances of this case the petition for habeas corpus was properly denied.

AFFIRMED.

BOOTH and WIGGINTON...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Rossy v. Lupkin, Case No. 3:14-cv-396-J-34PDB
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Court of Middle District of Florida
    • 17 Mayo 2017
    ...pursuant to Section 941.14 is to "permit[] time for the procedures required for production of a governor's warrant." Lewis v. Boone, 418 So.2d 319, 320 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). In the instant petition, the Petitioner admits that subsequent [to] his transfer to the Hamilton County Jail he was ta......
  • State v. Roberts, s. 82-28
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • 4 Marzo 1983
    ...Agreement's operation, then his failure of strict compliance will not deprive him of its benefits. 598 S.W.2d at 590. Cf. Lewis v. Boone, 418 So.2d 319 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) (holding that the state's substantial compliance with the Uniform Interstate Extradition Act, section 941.14, et seq., ......
  • In re Lamont, CASE NO. 1-13-02
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Ohio)
    • 22 Julio 2013
    ...291 Pa.Super. 209, 216, 435 A.2d 872 (1981) (substantial compliance with Uniform Extradition Act is sufficient); Lewis v. Boone, 418 So.2d 319, 320 (Fla.App.1982) (same). {¶17} Additionally, if the requirements of the Extradition Act are incorporated into Article IV(a) of the IAD, then the ......
  • Sanders, Matter of, 56863
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Kansas
    • 1 Agosto 1985
    ...renders the questionable detention a moot issue. See, e.g., Com. v. Brown, 281 Pa.Super. 31, 36, 421 A.2d 1131 (1980); Lewis v. Boone, 418 So.2d 319, 320 (Fla.Dist.App.1982). It is important to note that none of these cases considered whether the fugitive's confinement beyond the statutory ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT