State v. Chase
| Decision Date | 02 March 1926 |
| Citation | 107 So. 541,91 Fla. 413 |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. PECK v. CHASE, Sheriff. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to Circuit Court, Dade County; H. F. Atkinson, Judge.
Proceeding by the State, on the relation of Joseph F. Peck, for habeas corpus to be directed to Henry R. Chase, Sheriff of Dade County. A final order denied the relator's motion to dismiss him from custody, and he brings error.
Reversed and remanded, with instructions.
Syllabus by the Court
Proceedings in extradition are sui juris, finding their existence as between nations wholly in treaty obligations, and as between states of Union wholly by virtue of federal Constitution and effectuating statutes. Proceedings in extradition are sui generis, finding their origin and existence, as between different nations, wholly in treaty obligations, and as between the states of this Union wholly by virtue of the provisions of the Constitution of the United States and effectuating statutes.
Chief executive of asylum state cannot issued executive warrant for apprehension of fugitive unless executive authority of commanding state has furnished him with copy of indictment found or affidavit made before magistrate charging accused with commission of crime, and certificate is authenticated by governor of chief magistrate of such state (Const. U.S. art 4, § 2; Rev. St. U.S. § 5278 [U. S. Comp. St. § 10126]). Under the federal statute, the chief executive of the asylum state is not authorized to issue the executive warrant for the apprehension of the fugitive, unless the executive authority of the demanding state has furnished him with a copy of an indictment found or an affidavit made before a magistrate of the state or territory where the crime was committed, charging the person demanded with having committed treason, felony, or other crime, and certified as authentic by the Governor or chief magistrate of the state or territory from whence the person so charged has fled.
Executive warrant of rendition need not set out in full or be accompanied by copy of indictment or affidavit on which it was issued; executive warrant of rendition is sufficient if it discloses that accused has been demanded as a fugitive by executive of state from which he fled, that requisition was accompanied by either copy of indictment found or affidavit made before magistrate, which was duly certified as authentic (Const. U.S. art. 4, § 2; Rev. St. U.S. § 5278 [U. S. Comp St. § 10126]; Rev. Gen. St. Fla. 1920, § 6182). It is not essential that the executive warrant of rendition, when so issued, shall set out in full or be accompanied by a copy of the indictment or affidavit upon which it was issued, but it is sufficient if it discloses that the conditions of the statute have been complied with. These in general are: (1) That the person charged had been demanded as a fugitive from justice by the executive of the state from whence he fled (2) that the requisition was accompanied by either a copy of an indictment found or an affidavit made before a magistrate (3) that the copy of the indictment or the affidavit was duly certified as authentic.
Rendition warrant for apprehension of fugitive, not showing that affidavit charging commission of crime was made before magistrate or judicial officer on face, fails to show compliance with federal statute (Const. U.S. art. 4, § 2; Rev. St. U.S. § 5278 [U. S. Comp. St. § 10126]; Rev. Gen. St. Fla. 1920, § 6182). When the Governor issues an executive warrant for the apprehension and rendition of a fugitive from justice, reciting that the executive of the demanding state produced 'a copy of affidavit' charging the said person so demanded with having committed in the demanding state a crime against the laws of such state, certified as authentic by the executive of such state, but not showing that such affidavit was made before a magistrate or judicial officer, it cannot be presumed that the affidavit was made in due course of judicial proceedings for the prosecution of the person demanded, and upon its face the warrant fails to show in this regard compliance with the federal statute, although in other respects entirely sufficient and legal.
Executive warrant of rendition must show on face substantial compliance with act of Congress under authority of which it is issued; executive warrant of rendition, failing to show that it was based on either indictment found or affidavit made before magistrate certified to by chief executive of demanding state, does not confer authority on arresting officer to arrest or detain accused; on failure of rendition warrant to show that it was based on either indictment or affidavit made before magistrate certified as authentic by chief executive of demanding state, accused should be discharged from custody on habeas corpus (Const. U.S. art. 4, § 2; Rev. St. U.S. § 5278 [U. S. Comp. St. § 10126]; Rev. Gen. St. Fla. 1920, § 6182). The executive warrant of rendition in extradition proceedings must show on its face substantial compliance with the act of Congress under authority of which it is issued, and, where such warrant fails to show that it was based upon either an indictment found or an affidavit made before a magistrate, certified as authentic by the chief executive of the demanding state, it does not confer authority upon the arresting officer to arrest or to detain the person demanded; and, where this is made to appear in a habeas corpus proceeding brought by such person, he should be discharged from custody.
Bart A. Riley, of Miami, for plaintiff in error.
J. B. Johnson, Atty. Gen., and Marvin C. McIntosh, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.
The relator was apprehended in Dade county, Fla., by the sheriff, and filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The sheriff's return to the writ disclosed that the relator was held by virtue of an executive warrant of extradition issued by the Governor of this state. The relator contested the legal sufficiency of the executive warrant inter alia upon the ground that the same did not show that the copy of affidavit therein referred to, charging the relator with having committed a crime against the laws of the state of Missouri, was 'made before a magistrate' of the demanding state. The final order of the court below denied the motion of the relator to dismiss him from custody upon this and other grounds, and denied the petition of the relator, and remanded him to the custody of the respondent sheriff. From such order the relator sued out writ of error. The only ground of objection raised in the court below to the sufficiency of the executive warrant, which is insisted upon in this court, is the omission from said warrant of the words above pointed out.
The major portion of the executive warrant reads as follows:
As was said by this court, speaking through Mr. Justice Strum in the case of State ex rel. Stringer v. Quigg et al., 107 So. 409, decided at the present term:
'Proceedings in extradition are sui generis, finding their origin and existence, as between different nations, wholly in treaty obligations, and as between the states of this Union, wholly by virtue of the provisions of the Constitution of the United States and effectuating statutes.'
The provision of our federal Constitution on this subject (article 4, § 2) is in general terms, but the act of Congress (section 5278, U.S. Rev. Stat. [section 10126, U.S. Comp. St.]) is more specific. The applicable portions of this statute read as follows:
'Whenever the executive authority of any state or territory demands any person as a fugitive from justice, of the executive authority of any state or territory to which such person has fled, and produces a copy of an indictment found or an affidavit made before a magistrate of any state or territory, charging the person demanded with having committed treason, felony, or other crime, certified as authentic by the Governor or chief magistrate of the state or territory from whence the person so charged has fled, it shall be the duty of the executive authority of the state or territory to which such person has fled to cause him to be arrested and secured, and to cause notice of the arrest to be given to the executive authority making such demand, or to the agent of such authority appointed to receive the fugitive, and to cause the fugitive to be delivered to such agent when he shall appear.'
It will be observed that the foundation of the executive warrant issued by the Governor of the asylum state, for the apprehension of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ullom v. Davis
... ... him under the constitution and laws of the land ... Corbin ... v. State, 99 Miss. 486, 66 So. 43; Johnson v. State, ... 108 Miss. 709, 67 So. 177; Haggett v. State, 99 ... Miss. 844, 56 So. 172; Polk v. State, 64 So ... in that it fails to recite the jurisdictional facts required ... to be shown on the face of the warrant ... State ... v. Chase, 107 So. 541 ... The ... appellant contends that the executive warrant, being the only ... authority for his detention, is insufficient ... ...
- Chase v. State
-
State Ex Rel. Cacciatore v. Drumright
...St. Rep. 173. See, also, Ex parte Powell, 20 Fla. 806. But we have also held that extradition proceedings are sui generis. State v. Chase, 91 Fla. 413, 107 So. 541. In v. State, supra, it does not appear upon what ground the petitioner was discharged from custody under the Governor's first ......
-
Mitchell v. Stoutamire
... ... 824] ... deprived of his liberty by them under a warrant of rendition ... issued by the Governor of the state of Florida, directed to ... the said Frank Stoutamire, as sheriff of Leon county, Fla., ... and to the said F. M. Dean, agent of the state of ... U.S. Rev. Stats. (18 USCA § 662), the applicable portions of ... which are quoted in State ex rel. Peck v. Chase, 91 ... Fla. 413, 107 So. 541. No reference is made in the executive ... warrant to the information referred to in the petition, which ... warrant ... ...