People ex rel. Dimas v. Shimp
Decision Date | 15 April 1980 |
Docket Number | No. 78-527,78-527 |
Citation | 38 Ill.Dec. 519,403 N.E.2d 750,83 Ill.App.3d 150 |
Parties | , 38 Ill.Dec. 519 PEOPLE of the State of Illinois ex rel. Gregory DIMAS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Wayne SHIMP, Sheriff of DuPage County, and James R. Thompson, Governor of the State of Illinois, Respondents-Appellees. |
Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Serpico, Novelle, Dvorak & Navigato, Robert A. Novelle, Chicago, for petitioner-appellant.
J. Michael Fitzsimmons, State's Atty., Wheaton, William J. Scott, Atty. Gen., Chicago, Phyllis J. Perko, Jan Tuckerman, State's Attys. Appellate Service Commission, Elgin, for respondents-appellees.
Petitioner, Gregory Dimas, brings this appeal from an order of the circuit court of DuPage County denying a writ of habeas corpus and ordering defendant extradited to the state of Nevada.
We affirm.
Petitioner was arrested by the respondent, Sheriff of DuPage County, on February 7, 1978, upon a fugitive from justice warrant issued out of DuPage County. On February 8, 1978, petitioner appeared before a judge. Bail was set, and he was held in custody in lieu of bond; the case was continued to March 8, 1978, the maximum time allowed. On March 8, 1978, the State asked for additional time and the matter was continued to April 7, 1978; bond was reduced to $10,000. On March 24, 1978, petitioner posted bail and was released. On April 7, 1978, the State moved to nolle pros and the matter was dismissed. At this time, petitioner advised the court that he was a narcotic addict in need of treatment and had delayed seeking treatment pending the outcome of the extradition proceedings. He stated that he would voluntarily commit himself to a one year treatment program for narcotic addicts at Tinley Park State Hospital. Petitioner subsequently voluntarily enrolled himself in a drug treatment program at the Tinley Park Drug Center after his release from the DuPage County jail.
The Governor's warrant was issued on April 14, 1978, at the request and demand of the Governor of Nevada, which was made on April 7, 1978. On June 26, 1978, petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus asking the court to quash the governor's warrant. The trial court denied the petition. Petitioner contends that his petition for writ of habeas corpus should have been granted and extradition denied because the documents presented to support the governor's warrant were defective in that they were not in compliance with sections 3 and 23 of the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1977, ch. 60, pars. 20, 40.)
At the outset it must be stated that proceedings for the interstate extradition of criminals are controlled by the Federal Constitution and federal law. Section 2 of article IV of the Constitution of the United States provides, in part, that:
"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." (U.S.Const., art. IV, § 2.)
The controlling federal statute (18 U.S.C. § 3182 (1976)) states, in relevant part, as follows:
The principle of federal supremacy in this area was succinctly stated by the Illinois Supreme Court in People ex rel. Hackler v. Lohman (1959), 17 Ill.2d 78, 84-85, 160 N.E.2d 792, 797, cert. denied (1960), 361 U.S. 963, 80 S.Ct. 591, 4 L.Ed.2d 544:
Since federal legislation in the field is not comprehensive, states are free to establish ancillary proceedings consistent with the federal scheme (People ex rel. Holmes v. Babb (1953), 414 Ill. 490, 493, 111 N.E.2d 316; People ex rel. Millet v. Babb (1953), 1 Ill.2d 191, 196, 115 N.E.2d 241) or even to provide for the surrender of fugitives on terms less exacting than those imposed by federal law (State ex rel. Sieloff v. Golz (1977), 80 Wis.2d 225, 258 N.W.2d 700; Glover v. State (1974), 257 Ark. 241, 515 S.W.2d 641; In re Austin (1971), 186 Neb. 815, 186 N.W.2d 723; Grano v. State (1969 Del.Super.), 257 A.2d 768; In re Morgan (1966), 244 Cal.App.2d 903, 53 Cal.Rptr. 642). States, however, cannot impose more stringent standards or refuse a demand for extradition on the basis of requirements not articulated by federal law.
Section 3 of the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1977, ch. 60 par. 20) provides as follows:
The Governor of Nevada's demand for extradition was in the form of a requisition issued upon the Governor of Illinois for the arrest and delivery of Gregory Dimas to an authorized agent of Nevada. The requisition stated that Gregory Dimas had been charged with the crime of sale of a controlled substance, that the crime had been committed in the County of Clark, Nevada, and that he had fled from justice in Nevada and was believed to be in Illinois. In the requisition, the Governor of Nevada certified as authentic the annexed application for requisition and the supporting documents. The supporting documents included a copy of the indictment of Gregory Dimas for the sale of a controlled substance, a certified copy of the bench warrant and two affidavits of police officer M. Hawkins.
Petitioner contends that the bench warrant which accompanied the demand was not properly certified and that the two affidavits of police officer M. Hawkins were not sworn to before a magistrate.
The bench warrant was properly certified as authentic by the Governor of Nevada. Neither the federal statute (18 U.S.C. § 3182 (1976)) nor section 3 of the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Patton
... ... Roberts, 359 So.2d 911, 912 (Fla.Dist. App.1978); People ex rel. Dimas v. Skimp, 83 Ill.App.3d 150, 152, 38 Ill.Dec. 519, 403 ... ...
-
Beauchamp v. Elrod
... ... (People ex rel. Hernandez v. Elrod (1981), 86 Ill.2d 453, 456, 56 Ill.Dec. 663, ... (People ex rel. Dimas v. Shimp (1980), 83 Ill.App.3d 150, 154, 38 Ill.Dec. 519, 521, 403 N.E.2d ... ...
-
Wright v. Bourbeau, 2598
... ... of Williams, 76 Idaho 173, 176, 279 P.2d 882 (1955); State ex rel. Sieloff v. Golz, 80 Wis.2d 225, 240, 258 N.W.2d 700 (1977). Although ... Grasso, 413 F.Supp. 427, 430 (D.Conn.1976); People ex rel. Dimas v. Shimp, 83 Ill.App.3d 150, 152, 38 Ill.Dec. 519, 403 ... ...
-
People v. Hoekstra, 2-05-0443.
... ... of the constitution or its amendments protecting the rights of individuals.'" People ex rel. Hogan v. Ogilvie, 35 Ill.2d 95, 97, 219 N.E.2d 491 (1966), quoting People ex rel. Gilbert v. Babb, ... Dimas v. Shimp, 83 Ill.App.3d 150, 154, 38 Ill.Dec. 519, 403 N.E.2d 750 (1980) ... ...