Satterfield, In re
| Decision Date | 12 April 1966 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 9726 |
| Parties | , 412 P.2d 540 In re James W. SATTERFIELD on Habeas Corpus. |
| Court | California Supreme Court |
James W. Satterfield, in pro. per., and Saul M. Weingarten, Seaside, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for petitioner.
Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen., Robert R. Granucci and Jackson L. Smith, Deputy Attys. Gen., for respondent.
The parties agree that petitioner should be transferred to a Florida penal institution in order to serve his California sentence concurrently with a prior Florida sentence. The only question to be decided in this proceeding is whether the transfer may be conditioned upon defendant's advance waiver of extradition in the event California seeks his return at the time of his release in Florida. Under authority of In re Patterson, Cal., 49 Cal.Rptr. 801, 411 P.2d 897, we conclude that such a condition may not be imposed.
In January 1956 petitioner was convicted of forgery in Florida. He was released on parole in April 1963 and subsequently came to California. In December 1964 he was convicted of forgery in the San Francisco Superior Court. The judgment specified that the sentence was to be served concurrently with any prior incompleted sentences. Before the entry of this judgment, the State of Florida had revoked petitioner's parole and had issued a warrant for his arrest.
The People concede that petitioner should be transferred to Florida so that he may serve his California and Florida sentences concurrently. (Pen.Code, § 669; In re Stoliker (1957) 49 Cal.2d 75, 315 P.2d 12.) However, they request this court to require that prior to his transfer he execute a waiver of any rights which he would otherwise have to extradition proceedings in the event his California sentence is not fully satisfied at the time of his release in Florida and California therefore requests his return. It is suggested that unless such a waiver is executed by petitioner, California will be unable to secure petitioner's return at that time since the transfer to Florida will be deemed a waiver by this state of further jurisdiction over him.
In re Whittington (1917) 34 Cal.App. 344, 167 P. 404, held that a state which transfers a prisoner to the custody of another sovereign impliedly waives further jurisdiction over him. In re Patterson, supra, 49 Cal.Rptr. 801, 411 P.2d 897, specifically disapproves of the holding in Whittington that a waiver of jurisdiction is automatically implied in all cases, and holds that the state shall not be deemed to have waived jurisdiction unless affirmative evidence demonstrates that there was an intentional waiver. In the present case, as in Patterson, nothing in the record or in Penal Code section 669 indicates an intent to commute that portion of the California sentence which may remain to be served at the time petitioner is released in Florida; the sole purpose of the transfer is to enable petitioner to serve his sentences concurrently. To automatically imply a waiver of jurisdiction in such circumstances is contrary to the policy of Penal Code section 1555.2, which provides that the extradition of a person to another state shall not be deemed a waiver of jurisdiction. This section of the Penal Code is a part of the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act and has also been adopted by Florida. (Fla.Stats., tit. 45, § 941.27.)
The Attorney General contends that even if...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Green
...cases in support of his position: In Re Schoengarth, 66 Cal.2d 295, 57 Cal.Rptr. 600, 425 P.2d 200 (1967); In Re Satterfield, 64 Cal.2d 419, 50 Cal.Rptr. 284, 412 P.2d 540 (1966); and In Re Patterson, 64 Cal.2d 357, 49 Cal.Rptr. 801, 411 P.2d 897 (1966). However, those cases deal with a sub......
-
Klock, In re
...Code section 1555.1, In re Patterson, [supra,] 64 Cal.2d 357, 363 [49 Cal.Rptr. 801, 411 P.2d 897], and In re Satterfield [1966], 64 Cal.2d 419, 421-422 [50 Cal.Rptr. 284, 412 P.2d 540]." The Supreme Court stayed extradition pending final disposition of the petition for habeas A hearing was......
-
Pierson v. Grant
...series of California decisions. See In re Schoengarth, 66 Cal.2d 295, 57 Cal.Rptr. 600, 425 P.2d 200 (1967); In re Satterfield, 64 Cal.2d 419, 50 Cal.Rptr. 284, 412 P.2d 540 (1966); In re Patterson, 64 Cal.2d 357, 49 Cal.Rptr. 801, 411 P.2d 897 (1966). In Patterson, the California Supreme C......
-
United States ex rel. Calhoun v. Twomey, 18883.
...which surrendered him. Walsh v. State ex rel. Eyman, 104 Ariz. 202, 450 P.2d 392, 396 (1969). Petitioner cites In re Satterfield, 64 Cal.2d 419, 50 Cal.Rptr. 284, 412 P.2d 540 as indicating to the contrary. In Satterfield, where California sought to require that prior to his extradition to ......