State v. Bennett
| Decision Date | 21 September 1956 |
| Citation | 90 So.2d 43 |
| Parties | STATE of Florida and Rex Sweat, as Sheriff of Duval County, Florida, Appellants, v. Julian C. BENNETT, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., Jos. P. Manners, Asst. Atty. Gen., William A. Hallowes, III, State Atty., and Nathan Schevitz, Asst. State Atty., Jacksonville, for appellants.
Lloyd Bass, Jacksonville, for appellee.
This is an appeal by the State from an order of the circuit court granting a petition for writ of habeas corpus and directing the respondent sheriff of Duval County to release the petitioner (appellee here) from custody.
In the petition for writ of habeas corpus it was alleged that petitioner was restrained by virtue of an extradition warrant issued by the Governor of Florida pursuant to a request from the Governor of Georgia seeking the return of petitioner to Richmond County, Georgia, to stand trial for the offense of abandonment of minor children under the laws of Georgia. The extradition warrant was based upon a criminal warrant, issued by a Georgia municipal judge, charging the petitioner with commission of this offense.
After hearing, the circuit judge entered the order appealed from, finding in part that:
'The demand on which the extradition of the petitioner was sought failed to allege that at the time the alleged crime was committed the petitioner was then in the State of Georgia, as required by the laws of the State of Florida as declared by the decision of the Supreme Court of the State of Florida in the case of Ennist v. Baden, , 28 So.2d 160 * * *'
The State takes the position that the only issue involved in the case is the sufficiency of the demand from the Governor of Georgia, and it is conceded that nowhere in the requisition from the Governor of Georgia, nor in any of the annexed papers, is there an express allegation that the petitioner was present in the State of Georgia at the time of the commission of the crime. F.S. Sec. 941.03, F.S.A. requires in part that:
'No demand for the extradition of a person charged with crime in another state shall be recognized by the governor unless in writing alleging * * * that the accused was present in the demanding state at the time of the commission of the alleged crime * * *.'
This section is part of Section 3 of the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act which has been adopted by the majority of the States. See 9 Uniform Laws Annotated 169.
Appellant first contends that the quoted portion of F.S. Sec. 941.03, F.S.A., insofar as it requires an allegation that the accused was present in the demanding state at the time of commission of the alleged crime, is void as in conflict with the federal constitution and statutes on the subject. The case of Ex parte Arrington, Mo., 270 S.W.2d 39 is relied upon for this contention. A careful reading of Ennist v. Baden, 158 Fla. 141, 28 So.2d 160, cited by the learned trial judge, will demonstrate that after an extensive review of the authorities this court has committed itself to a position opposite from that now taken by the State. We have reconsidered the Baden case, and see no reason to depart from it.
The second point raised by the appellant occasions more concern. It is contended that in a case of this nature, where the crime charged is failing to provide for support, Section 6 of Chapter 29901, Laws of Florida, 1955, presently F.S. Sec. 88.061, F.S.A., is specifically applicable and supersedes the general requirement that the demand for extradition allege that the accused was present in the demanding state.
F.S. Sec. 88.061, F.S.A. reads as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pecnik v. Blackburn, 2479
...commission of the alleged crime. The facts in the instant case are readily distinguishable from the facts in the case of State v. Bennett, Fla., 1956, 90 So.2d 43, in that, in that case the proceedings for extradition was under Section 88.061, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., which section specifi......
-
State ex rel. Anderson v. Weinstein
...its reserved sovereign powers and as an act of comity to a sister state. 22 Amer.Jur., Extradition, Sec. 9, p. 250. State of Florida et al. v. Bennett, Fla., 90 So.2d 43; Harrison v. State, Ala.App., 38 Ala.App. 60, 77 So.2d 384, cert. den., 262 Ala. 701, 77 So.2d 387; Ex parte Coleman, 157......
-
State v. Darnell
...consistent herewith. It is so ordered. ERVIN, C.J., and ROBERTS, DREW and ADKINS, JJ., concur. 1 158 Fla. 141, 28 So.2d 160 (1946).2 90 So.2d 43 (Fla.1956).3 217 So.2d 127, 128 (Fla.App.3rd 1968).4 148 Fla. 109, 3 So.2d 754 (1941).5 127 So.2d 441 (Fla.1961).6 90 So.2d 43, 45 (Fla.1956).7 Fl......
-
Gallant v. State
...of failing to provide for the support of a person in such other state.' We find, as did the Supreme Court of Florida in State v. Bennett, Fla., 90 So.2d 43 (1956) that the evidence intent from the use of the above-cited language in the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act was to en......