Murphy v. Boehm
| Decision Date | 29 December 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 82-954,82-954 |
| Citation | 443 So.2d 363 |
| Parties | Ernest P. MURPHY, Sheriff of Osceola County, Florida, Appellant, v. Paul Lawrence BOEHM, Sr., Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Sean Daly, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellant.
James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Theresa K. Edwards, Asst. Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for appellee.
Osceola County Sheriff Ernest P. Murphy appeals an order granting habeas corpus relief to appellee Paul Lawrence Boehm and discharging him from the further custody of appellant.
In July, 1980, Boehm was arrested in Martin County, Florida, as a fugitive from justice from the State of Ohio. The complaint in support of his arrest, as required by Fla.Stat. § 941.14, stated that Martin County had received credible information from the State of Ohio that Paul Lawrence Boehm had allegedly committed the crimes of escape and felony theft under the laws of that state and had escaped confinement and fled Ohio.
Finding probable cause, the trial court ordered Boehm held for 30 days for extradition purposes. Subsequently, a second order continued the appellee's incarceration for another sixty days. At the expiration of the sixty-day period, Boehm was released on his own recognizance by order of the lower court because the "State of Ohio failed to initiate extradition proceedings within 90 days."
On April 13, 1982, Boehm was arrested in Osceola County pursuant to a warrant for his arrest from Clermont County, Ohio. A complaint in support of the arrest was filed April 14, asserting that Boehm stands charged in Ohio with the crime of escape. This is apparently the same charge for which he had previously been picked up in Martin County. A commitment warrant was issued ordering Boehm held pending receipt of a governor's warrant for extradition, and that time was again extended for an additional sixty days.
Before the extended period expired, Boehm filed his petition for habeas corpus, alleging that he was being illegally detained in that his earlier arrest in Martin County and his subsequent release operated as a bar to any further attempt by the demanding state to extradite him on the same facts. At the hearing on the petition and the sheriff's return, the State presented the warrant of the Governor of the State of Florida commanding Boehm's arrest and his delivery to a duly appointed representative of the State of Ohio. § 941.07, Fla.Stat. (1981). The trial court agreed that defendant was being illegally detained, holding that Ohio's failure to "get [its] house in order" during the original 90-day confinement in Martin County did not permit a second arrest on the same facts. Defendant was discharged and the State appeals. We reverse.
Extradition is essentially a federal matter governed by the United States Constitution and federal laws enacted thereunder. State ex rel. Stringer v. Quigg, 91 Fla. 197, 107 So. 409 (1926); State v. Cox, 306 So.2d 156 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974); U.S. CONST. art. IV § 2; 18 U.S.C. § 3182 (1948). In aid of this federal mandate, many states, including Florida, have adopted the Uniform Interstate Extradition Act. See Fla.Stat. §§ 941.01-941.42 (1981). The relevant provisions of Florida's version of the act provide that a person may be lawfully arrested without a warrant "upon reasonable information that the accused stands charged in the courts of a state with a crime punishable by death or imprisonment for a term exceeding one year." When such a person is arrested he must be taken before a judge with "all practicable speed" and a complaint must be made against him under oath setting forth the ground for the arrest. Fla.Stat. § 941.14 (1981). Sub judice, both times appellee was arrested he was arrested based upon reasonable information from Ohio that he stood charged with escape and felony theft in Ohio. Based upon this information complaints were filed against him. He was released in Martin County because the governor's warrant was not forthcoming. He filed no petition for habeas corpus, nor was there any adjudication of disputed issues.
Boehm incorrectly relies on Stack v. State ex rel. Kaye, 333 So.2d 509 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976), as support for the order of discharge, but the facts in Stack make that case inapposite. In Stack, the issue was whether res judicata applies to a second habeas corpus proceeding arising out of a second attempt to extradite the appellee. Norman Kaye had been arrested in Florida in January 1975 pursuant to a demand for extradition initiated by the state of Maine. He filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus attacking all the supporting documents attached to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People ex rel. Schank v. Gerace
...31-32, 479 N.W.2d 178, 180 [Wis.App.], review denied 482 N.W.2d 105; Elliott v. Johnson, 816 S.W.2d 332, 337 [Tenn.App.]; Murphy v. Boehm, 443 So.2d 363, 366 [Fla.App.]; State ex rel. Yarbrough v. Snider, 2 Or.App. 97, 99-100, 465 P.2d 739, 740-741; Ex parte Barron, 222 S.W.2d 241, 243 [Mo.......
-
James H. Hval, In re
... ... The Maine court order releasing petitioner from detention was not with prejudice vis-a-vis the ultimate issue of extradition (see Murphy v. Boehm, 443 So.2d 363, 366 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1983)), but it should be deemed binding and final on the narrower question of prerequisition detention ... ...
-
State v. Van Buskirk
...23-24-19.2 The cases referred to by State include: Whetstone v. Freeman, 524 So.2d 1159 (Fla.App. 3rd Dist.1988); Murphy v. Boehm, 443 So.2d 363 (Fla.App. 5th Dist.1983); Matter of Sanders, 10 Kan.App.2d 489, 704 P.2d 386 (1985); Application of Simpson, 2 Kan.App.2d 713, 586 P.2d 1389 (1978......
-
Whetstone v. Freeman
...which, like this one, was properly supported by a valid warrant. State v. Dearing, 513 So.2d 232 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Murphy v. Boehm, 443 So.2d 363 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); accord, e.g., In re Blackburn, 701 P.2d 715 (Mont.1985); In re Hval, 148 Vt. 544, 537 A.2d 135 (1987). Accordingly, the tr......