State v. Luster
| Citation | 596 So.2d 454 |
| Decision Date | 02 April 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 77627,77627 |
| Parties | 17 Fla. L. Weekly S206 STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. William LUSTER, Respondent. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
Janet Reno, State Atty., and Barbra G. Pineiro, Asst. State Atty., Miami, for petitioner.
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and N. Joseph Durant, Jr. and Harvey J. Sepler, Asst. Public Defenders, Miami, for respondent.
We have for review Lawrence v. Luster, 575 So.2d 220 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991), in which the district court certified the following question as being of great public importance:
Whether section 941.03, Florida Statutes [ (1989) ], is satisfied when the judgment or sentence is executed in accordance with the laws of the demanding state although the form required by the demanding state does not meet the Florida requirements for a judgment and sentence?
Id. at 222. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, Sec. 3(b)(4), Fla.Const.
William Luster, after serving several years in a California prison for assault with a firearm, left California in violation of his parole requirements. He took residence in Florida. A warrant then was issued for his arrest. Based on that warrant, he was arrested in Dade County, Florida, as a fugitive from the State of California. California demanded extradition and supported this claim with an abstract of judgment certified by the clerk of the California court. The Governor of Florida then issued a routine rendition warrant for Luster's arrest.
After his arrest, Luster petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that he was unlawfully confined because his extradition documents were not accompanied by a "copy of a judgment of conviction or of a sentence imposed in execution thereof" as required by section 941.03, Florida Statutes (1989). 1 After consideration of extradition requirements under Florida law, the trial court granted the writ, holding that an abstract of judgment is not sufficient to qualify as an official judgment or sentence. The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed and then certified the above question. Luster, 575 So.2d at 222.
The United States Constitution mandates unimpeded interstate extradition of fugitives:
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, Sec. 2, cl. 2. Obviously, under the supremacy clause of the federal Constitution, individual states cannot adopt extradition standards inconsistent with the Extradition Clause or federal legislation enacted pursuant to it. See Biddinger v. Commissioner of Police, 245 U.S. 128, 132-133, 38 S.Ct. 41, 42, 62 L.Ed. 193 (1971). The Extradition Clause articulates, "in mandatory language, the concepts of comity and full faith and credit." 2 Michigan v. Doran, 439 U.S. 282, 287-88, 99 S.Ct. 530, 534-35, 58 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978).
Under the relevant law, a governor's grant of extradition is prima facie evidence that the constitutional and statutory requirements have been met. A court considering release on habeas corpus can do no more than decide: (1) whether the extradition documents sent by the demanding state are, on their face, in order; (2) whether the petitioner has been charged with a crime in the demanding state; (3) whether the petitioner has been named in the demand; and (4) whether the petitioner is a fugitive. Id. at 289, 99 S.Ct. at 535. The asylum state is "bound to accept the demanding state's judicial determination since the proceedings of the demanding state are clothed with the traditional presumption of regularity." Id. at 290, 99 S.Ct. at 536.
We note that the law of California treats the clerk's abstract of judgment as though it were an equivalent of Florida's written order of judgment. As both parties have conceded, there is no requirement that the California judge...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jones v. Fla. Parole Com'n
...the legitimacy and application of habeas petitions that do not challenge criminal convictions and sentences. See, e.g., State v. Luster, 596 So.2d 454, 455 (Fla.1992) (interstate extradition); Sandstrom v. Leader, 370 So.2d 3, 5 (Fla.1979) (challenge to statute under which petitioner is con......
-
Barnes v. State, 98-0299.
...special appellate counsel. 3. See State v. Ashley, 701 So.2d 338 (Fla. 1997); Unruh v. State, 669 So.2d 242 (Fla. 1996); State v. Luster, 596 So.2d 454 (Fla. 1992); State v. Donaldson, 579 So.2d 728 (Fla.1991); State v. Crenshaw, 548 So.2d 223 (Fla.1989); and Craft v. State, 517 So.2d 691 (......
-
In re Lambert
...similar circumstances, we note that other courts have uniformly recognized judgment-of-conviction "equivalents." In State v. Luster, 596 So.2d 454, 455-56 (Fla.1992), for example, the Florida Supreme Court concluded that an "abstract of judgment" certified by the clerk of the California cou......
-
Rogers v. State, 92137
...evidence that constitutional and statutory requirements have been satisfied. Doran, 439 U.S. at 287-89, 99 S.Ct. 530; State v. Luster, 596 So.2d 454, 455-56 (Fla.1992). Following a governor's grant of extradition, a court considering release on habeas corpus may only decide: (1) whether ext......