Powell v. State
| Decision Date | 20 March 1973 |
| Docket Number | CA-CIV,No. 2,2 |
| Citation | 507 P.2d 989,19 Ariz.App. 377 |
| Parties | Ernest Ray POWELL, Appellant, v. The STATE of Arizona and Frank A. Eyman, former Warden, Arizona State Prison, Appellee. 1224. |
| Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
Ernest Ray Powell, in pro. per.
Gary K. Nelson, Atty. Gen., by Thomas A. Jacobs, Asst. Atty. Gen., Phoenix, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a denial of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
On August 1, 1971, petitioner, while in the custody of Texas authorities, was questioned about a robbery of a 7--11 convenience market in El Paso, Texas. Shortly after this interrogation, petitioner was released to Arizona authorities for trial on a pending Arizona charge; he was subsequently convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment in the Arizona State Prison. On November 11, 1971, while petitioner was serving his sentence, an indictment charging him with the crime for which he had been interrogated in Texas (robbery with a firearm) was filed in the 34th District Court in El Paso County, Texas. Texas initiated extradition proceedings, with the Governor of Texas issuing a Governor's warrant commanding the arrest and return of petitioner to Texas. The Governor's extradition hearing was held on March 22, 1972, following which a recommendation of extradition was made. Petitioner was present at this hearing, appearing without counsel. The Governor's warrant was issued on March 23, 1972, and was stayed as a result of the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. This petition alleged, Inter alia, that 'he (petitioner) was in the City of Lakeland, State of Florida, during the period prior and subsequent to the date of said robbery.'
On March 28, 1972, a hearing was held on the habeas corpus petition with petitioner present, although not represented by counsel. The State presented (1) a copy of the indictment and warrant from the State of Texas, (2) a copy of the Governor's warrant of extradition, (3) a copy of the Executive Agreement from the State of Texas to the State of Arizona, and (4) a copy of the Agent's commission from the State of Texas. Such documents were found sufficient at both the extradition and habeas corpus proceedings, thus habeas corpus relief was denied.
On appeal, petitioner initially contends that the extradition hearing did not afford him due process in that he was not appointed counsel at a criticl state of his prosecution. 1 This contention is without merit. A Governor's hearing, such as the one held on March 22, 1972, is not a statutory mandate. It is a mere factual determination that the person demanded is charged with a crime and is a fugitive from justice. It is based upon the demanding state's submitted requisition papers, State v. Flowers, 9 Ariz.App. 440, 453 P.2d 536 (1969), and is not an adversary proceeding. One is not entitled to have counsel appointed at this stage. Applications of Oppenheimer, 95 Ariz. 292, 389 P.2d 696 (1964); State v. Bost, 2 Ariz.App. 431, 409 P.2d 590 (1966); Rugg v. Burr, 1 Ariz.App. 280, 402 P.2d 28 (1965).
Petitioner next urges a violation of his right to counsel at the habeas corpus hearing held on March 28, 1972. This contention also lacks merit for a proceeding on a writ of habeas corpus is not a criminal prosecution but a civil proceeding to test the legality of and correctness of detention. Application of Anderson, 6 Ariz.App. 563, 435 P.2d 70 (1967); Leonard v. Eyman, 1 Ariz.App. 593, 405 P.2d 903 (1965). There is no right to appointment of counsel in a civil proceeding in the State of Arizona. Leonard v. Eyman, supra.
Petitioner's final contention is that the superior court erred in denying the writ without inquiring into his allegations of non-presence in the demanding state at the time the crime was allegedly committed and that the demanding state, Texas, relinquished jurisdiction of the petitioner by releasing him to the Arizona authorities in August of 1971. These allegations bring into view the purpose of a writ of habeas corpus proceeding. As stated in Applications of Oppenheimer, supra:
'In Arizona, the writ of habeas corpus may be used only to review matters affecting a court's jurisdiction.' 389 P.2d at 700.
The court is thus under a duty, in deciding whether the demanding state has jurisdiction, to determine:
'(1) That the complaint issued out of the demanding state was made on an affidavit (2) that it substantially charges an offense (3) that it is made to appear that the accused is a fugitive from justice.' 389 P.2d at 700.
Evidentiary facts, however, which go to a defendant's guilt or innocence, are not a proper matter for consideration except...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Utt v. State
...by court-appointed counsel if he is unable to employ counsel. The defendant was denied no constitutional right.); Powell v. State, 19 Ariz.App. 377, 507 P.2d 989, 990 (1973) (No right to have appointed counsel at a rendition hearing.); Rugg v. Burr, 1 Ariz.App. 280, 402 P.2d 28, 28 (1965) (......
-
Menin v. Menin
...1624, 29 L.Ed.2d 128; Archuleta v. Grand Lodge of Internat'lAss'n of M. & A.W., 262 Cal.App.2d 202, 68 Cal.Rptr. 694; Powell v. State, 19 Ariz.App. 377, 507 P.2d 989; Petition of Waite, 143 Mont. 321, 389 P.2d 407; cf. Dade County v. McCrary, 260 So.2d 543 (Fla.App.); Caron v. Betit, 131 Vt......
-
Archuleta v. Goldman
...of a litigant to the appointment of an attorney in a civil case. Caruth v. Pinkney, 683 F.2d 1044 (7th Cir.1982); Powell v. State, 19 Ariz.App. 377, 507 P.2d 989 (1973). In civil proceedings generally, where the litigant's liberty interests are not involved, appointment of counsel is consid......
-
People v. Morton
...is not a critical stage of a criminal proceeding and the constitutional right to counsel does not attach thereat (see Powell v. State, 19 Ariz.App. 377, 507 P.2d 989, 990; Roberts v. Hocker, 85 Nev. 390, 456 P.2d 425, 427-428; Ex Parte Medieros, 552 S.W.2d 156, 158 Utt v. State, 293 Md. 271......