McFarlin v. Shirley
| Decision Date | 14 May 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. 18184,18184 |
| Citation | 76 S.E.2d 1,209 Ga. 794 |
| Parties | McFARLIN v. SHIRLEY, Sheriff. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. Blackwell v. Jennings, 128 Ga. 264(2), 57 S.E. 484.
2. While the evidence offered by the petitioner in the present case can not be held, as a matter of law, to be sufficient to overcome this presumption, the respondent having tendered in evidence, over proper objections of the petitioner, the requisition of the Governor of the State of South Carolina without 'a copy of an indictment found or an affidavit made before a magistrate' 18 U.S.C.A., § 3182, the respondent in effect contradicted the prima facie showing made by the warrant alone, and thus showed that the petitioner was being illegally restrained, in that the warrant was not based on a valid requisition. The trial court, therefore, erred in remanding the petitioner to the respondent.
G. A. McFarlin filed his petition for writ of habeas corpus to the Judge of the City Court of Stephens County, alleging that he was being illegally restrained of his liberty by the sheriff of that county, the pretense of his restraint being an extradition warrant issued by the Governor of Georgia upon a request from the Governor of South Carolina. He asserted that the purpose of the proceeding was the collection of a debt from the petitioner, and that such prosecution is in violation of the Constitution of the State of Georgia, article 1, § 1, paragraph 21, Code, Ann., § 2-121. He further asserted that the act of 1951, approved February 21, 1951, Ga.L.1951, pp. 726-737, Code, Ann.Supp., Chapter 44-4, and particularly § 20 of that Act, Code, Ann.Supp., § 44-420, are contrary to the Constitution of Georgia, which declares that 'The legislative, judicial and executive powers shall forever remain separate', Const. art. 1, § 1, par. 23, in so far as the act of 1951 delegates, or attempts to delegate, to the Governor judicial power or authority.
The sheriff in his response alleged that he was holding the petitioner under a warrant issued by the Governor of Georgia.
On the hearing the respondent tendered in evidence the following requisition:
'The State of South Carolina--Executive Department--Office of the Governor.
'To All to Whom These Presents Shall Come, Greeting:
'Whereas, I have this date issued requisition papers for the extradition of one G. A. McFarlin, wanted in Anderson, County, South Carolina, on the charge of obtaining property by false pretense
'And Whereas, Agreeably to the provisions of the Constitution of the United States, and an Act of Congress passed the Twelfth day of February, One Thousand Seven Hundred and Ninety Three, I have made a demand for His Excellency the Governor of Georgia for the delivery of the said G. A. McFarlin as fugitive from justice; and have also, in pursuance of the power vested in me by law, Appointed, and by these Presents I do appoint and Commission Robert Meeks, Deputy Sheriff, Anderson, S. C. Agent, on the part of this State, for the purpose of bringing the said G. A. McFarlin to this State, having jurisdiction of the crime aforesaid, whenever, the Governor of said State of Georgia shall cause him to be delivered up, agreeably to the requisition aforesaid.
'These are, Therefore, To request and require all persons to permit the said Robert Meeks, Deputy Sheriff, Anderson, S. C. to receive and secure the said G. A. McFarlin and bring him unmolested into this State, having jurisdiction of said crime.
'Given under my hand and the Seal of the Executive Department, at the Capitol, in Columbia, this 1st day of December, in the year of our Lord One Thousand Nine Hundred and Fifty-Two, and of the Independence of the United States of America the One Hundred Seventy-Seventh.
'By the Governor
'Wm. F. Prioleau, Jr.
'James F. Byrnes, Governor'
The petitioner objected to the admission of this requisition as evidence against him on the ground that it was not accompanied by the papers referred to therein, and did not carry the necessary proof that the petitioner had committed any crime in the State of South Carolina. The objection was overruled and the requisition admitted in evidence.
The respondent then introduced in evidence a warrant from the Executive Department of the State of Georgia, as follows:
'Executive Department--the State of Georgia--the Governor of the State of Georgia
'To all the Sheriffs and Constables thereof--Greeting:
'Whereas, His Excellency Honorable James F. Byrnes, Governor of the State of South Carolina, and as the Executive authority thereof, has demanded of me G. A. McFarlin a Fugitive from Justice from the said State, and has produced to me a Requisition, accompanied by supporting documents, charging the said Fugitive from Justice with having committed in the said State the crime of obtaining property by false pretense which Documents are duly certified as authentic by His Excellency, the Governor of the said State, and has also appointed and commissioned Robert Meeks, Deputy Sheriff, Anderson, S. C., Agent on the part of the said State, to receive the said Fugitive from Justice from the civil authorities of this State to the end that he may be carried to the said State, there to be dealt with according to law.
'And, Whereas, It is suspected that the said Fugitive from Justice is now within jurisdictional limits of this State:
'Now, In accordance with the provisions of an Act of Congress, passed 12th February, 1793, respecting Fugitives from Justice, and in order that the said Fugitive from Justice may be brought to trial for the offense for which he stands charged:
'Given under my hand and the seal of the Executive Department, at the Capitol, in the City of Atlanta, the 23rd day of December A. D., 1952, and of the Independence of the United States of America, the One Hundred and Seventy Seven.
'(Official Seal)
'By the Governor--William H. Kimbrough--Secretary Executive Department.'
The petitioner objected to the introduction of this warrant on the ground that it was not accompanied by the papers referred to therein and did not carry the necessary proof that the petitioner had committed any crime in the State of South Carolina. The objection was overruled and the paper admitted in evidence.
After hearing evidence (none of which is germane to the rulings here made), the judge remanded the petitioner to the custody of the respondent. The petitioner excepted to the rulings made by the trial judge set out in his bill of exceptions, and to the judgment remanding him to custody.
George L. Goode, Toccoa, for plaintiff in error.
No appearance for defendant in error.
The primary law governing extradition proceedings is found in the Constitution of the United States, and the acts of Congress passed in pursuance thereof. Constitution of the State of Georgia, article 12, § 1, paragraph 1, Code, Ann., § 2-8001; Barranger v. Baum, 103 Ga. 465, 472, 30 S.E. 524.
The Constitution of the United States, article 4, § 2, paragraph 2, Code, § 1-403, provides as follows: 'A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.'
The Federal statute which implements this constitutional provision is in part as follows:...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jenkins v. Garrison
...of a fugitive from justice found in the asylum state. Jackson v. Pittard, 211 Ga. 427, 428, 86 S.E.2d 295 (1955); McFarlin v. Shirley, 209 Ga. 794, 798-99, 76 S.E.2d 1 (1953). A fugitive from justice a person who, having committed or been charged with a crime in one state, has left its juri......
- Crawford v. Balli
-
Chavers v. State, 7 Div. 682
...case is indistinguishable from this one. That I am not alone in this view, would appear from the majority opinion in McFarlin v. Shirley, 209 Ga. 794, 76 S.E.2d 1, where the syllabus by the court '1. 'When in the trial of a habeas corpus case, it appears that the respondent holds the petiti......
-
Williams v. Grimes, 20112
...198 Ga. 51, 30 S.E.2d 921; Mayfield v. Hornsby, 199 Ga. 70, 33 S.E.2d 312; Mathews v. Foster, 209 Ga. 699, 75 S.E.2d 427; McFarlin v. Shirley, 209 Ga. 794, 76 S.E.2d 1. Since no question is raised as to the sufficiency of the warrant but merely that the sentence is void because of a change ......