State v. McCurley, 91-KA-0125

Decision Date18 November 1993
Docket NumberNo. 91-KA-0125,91-KA-0125
Citation627 So.2d 339
PartiesSTATE of Mississippi v. Jennings McCURLEY and Cathy McCurley.
CourtMississippi Supreme Court

Michael C. Moore, Atty. Gen., Mary Margaret Bowers, Ellen Y. Dale, Sp. Asst. Attys. Gen., Jackson, for appellant.

L. Jackson Lazarus, David C. Bramlette, III, Adams Foreman Truly Smith & Bramlette, Natchez, for appellee.

EN BANC.

PITTMAN, Justice, for the court:

This case is one of first impression involving the interpretation of extradition proceedings found in Miss.Code Ann. Sec. 7-1-25 (1972, as amended). The Circuit Court of Wilkinson County, Mississippi, granted the Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Jennings and Cathy McCurley. The petitioners sought relief from the proceedings initiated by the State of Louisiana for the extradition of Jennings and Cathy McCurley based upon charges of issuing worthless checks in the State of Louisiana. Aggrieved by the lower court's holding, the State of Mississippi has appealed to this Court. After considering the excellent briefs submitted by both parties as well as the applicable law, we find that the lower court was in error in not extraditing Jennings and Cathy McCurley to Louisiana so that they may face charges of issuing worthless checks. The proper forum to hear these charges lies in Louisiana and not Mississippi. We therefore reverse and render the lower court's decision.

I.

Jennings and Catherine McCurley owned Sports Unlimited, a convenience store in Woodville, Mississippi. Since Woodville is near the Mississippi/Louisiana state line, it is not uncommon for a business to have dealings in both states. Sometime in 1983 or 1984, a representative from Wilcox Oil Company, a petroleum products distributor from nearby St. Francisville, Louisiana, approached the owner of the building housing Sports Unlimited about selling Wilcox Oil's petroleum products. Following the owner's agreement, Wilcox Oil installed underground oil tanks and pumps on the premises. The installed fixtures remained the property of Wilcox Oil and the McCurleys acted as commission agents for the oil company. On every Monday, a Wilcox Oil representative would deliver gasoline to Sports Unlimited, and the McCurleys would in turn write a check to Wilcox Oil for the amount of the gasoline sold the previous week. Wilcox Oil would figure out the McCurleys' sales commission and remit a check to them shortly thereafter.

This course of dealing continued without problems until January of 1988, when Sports Unlimited began to encounter financial difficulties. The McCurleys' weekly checks to Wilcox Oil began to be returned by Wilcox Oil's bank in Louisiana for insufficient funds. Each time this happened, Wilcox would run the checks through another time in the hopes that the necessary funds would be available. However, the checks were often dishonored a second time, requiring that the McCurleys issue new checks. Things became so bad that Wilcox Oil began sending a representative out to Sports Unlimited on a daily basis in order to collect the receipts from the previous day. Usually Wilcox Oil would receive a check from the McCurleys when they delivered more gasoline. However, on September 6, 1988, the McCurleys' oldest daughter drove to the company's headquarters in St. Francisville with several checks to cover dishonored ones. It was several of these checks that led to Wilcox Oil's filing of criminal affidavits against the McCurleys.

After receiving fifty-eight returned checks, the McCurleys' debt to Wilcox Oil totaled $42,000.00. The McCurleys were able to pay $5,000.00 towards the balance, but $38,847.67 of the debt still remained. In an attempt to secure its financial position, Wilcox asked that the McCurleys sign a promissory note for the amount of the outstanding debt. The McCurleys executed the promissory note, gave Wilcox Oil a second lien on its inventory and accounts receivable, gave Wilcox Oil a third mortgage on their home, and assigned its lease to them. The promissory note was reduced by the McCurleys' endorsement of their commission check back to Wilcox Oil. When the McCurleys closed the doors of their business, $17,000 had been paid on the promissory note. The McCurleys filed bankruptcy soon thereafter. Because Wilcox Oil stood behind the first lienholder with regard to Sports Unlimited's accounts receivable and inventory, the company received nothing in the form of additional payment.

Rather than attempting to collect on the promissory note, Clifford Wilcox turned six returned checks over to the West Feliciana Parish Assistant District Attorney in order to institute criminal proceedings against the McCurleys. Wilcox signed affidavits charging both Jennings and Catherine McCurley with issuance of worthless checks in violation of 14:71 of the Louisiana Code R.S. and listed the amounts of each worthless check on the affidavit. The Assistant District Attorney then prepared and submitted documents requesting the McCurleys' extradition to then-Governor Buddy Roemer of Louisiana for his signature. These documents were sent to then-Governor Ray Mabus of Mississippi.

An extradition hearing was held by then-Governor Mabus, where it was determined that the extradition documents were improper on their face. Apparently the affidavits filed by Clifford Wilcox stated that the crime occurred in Louisiana, while the warrant and request for extradition documents stated that the crime had occurred in Mississippi. New documents were drafted and filed with then-Governor Mabus, who ordered that the McCurleys be arrested. After being taken into custody, the McCurleys filed a Writ of Habeas Corpus, challenging the validity of their detention. Circuit Court Judge Richard Watson granted the McCurleys' petition, thereby releasing them from custody. From this decision, the State of Mississippi appeals on the following grounds:

I. THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED ERROR WHEN IT IMPROPERLY TRAVERSED THE BOUNDS OF THE HEARING ON WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS BROUGHT RELATIVE TO THE EXTRADITION OF JENNINGS AND CATHY MCCURLEY UPON RULING THAT NO CRIME HAD BEEN COMMITTED IN EITHER MISSISSIPPI OR LOUISIANA.

II. THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED ERROR IN ITS FINDINGS THAT THE LEGAL DOCUMENTS IN THIS MATTER WERE IMPROPER ON THEIR FACE.

III. THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED ERROR IN CONSIDERING THE ISSUE OF FUGITIVITY, THEREBY IGNORING THE APPLICATION TO THIS CASE OF Sec. 7-1-25(2), WHICH MAKES THE ISSUE OF FUGITIVITY IRRELEVANT.

Lower court's findings.

At the habeas corpus proceedings, the trial judge found that the court was bound by Allen v. State, 515 So.2d 890 (Miss.1987). Judge Watson found the request for extradition documents to be improper on its face because Wilcox's affidavit was in conflict with the extradition documents filed by the Governor of Louisiana. The judge further found that no crime existed in either Mississippi or Louisiana because the parties executed a promissory note and security agreements to replace the worthless checks. Although the judge found the petitioners to be the persons named in the request for extradition documents, he determined them not to be fugitives since they were not in the State of Louisiana at the time of the alleged crimes.

II.

Did the lower court err in granting the McCurleys' Writ of Habeas Corpus?

Interstate extradition of fugitives is a matter of federal law, originating in article IV, Sec. 2 of the United States Constitution, which states:

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.

Federal extradition law was later codified in 18 U.S.C.A. Sec. 3182 (1969), stating:

Whenever the executive authority of any State or Territory demands any person as a fugitive from justice, of the executive authority of any State, District 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, the executive authority of the State, District or Territory to which such person has fled shall cause him to be arrested and secured, and notify the executive authority making such demand, or the agent of such authority appointed to receive the fugitive, and shall cause the fugitive to be delivered to such agent when he shall appear. If no such agent appears within thirty days from the time of arrest, the prisoner may be discharged.

Individual states have been granted the right to enact their own extradition laws as long as these laws in no way impair federal extradition law. Many states have exercised this legislative right and have passed individual extradition laws. Other states have adopted the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act. To date, Mississippi has not adopted the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, but has enacted individual extradition statutes. See Miss.Code Ann. Sec. 7-1-25 (1972, as amended). In Loper v. Dees, 210 Miss. 402, 49 So.2d 718 (1951), this Court held that Mississippi statutes relating to habeas corpus and interstate extradition are not applicable except to the extent that they may be in aid of and not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States on the question. Id., 210 Miss. at 410, 49 So.2d at 720; see also Bishop v. Jones, 207 Miss. 423, 439, 42 So.2d 421, 422 (1949).

This appeal involves the interpretation of a subsection of Miss.Code Ann. Sec. 7-1-25, which states:

(1) It shall be the duty of the governor, on demand made by the executive authority of any other state, territory or district for any person charged, on affidavit or indictment in such other state, territory or district, with a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • SONKIN v. State
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • June 13, 2002
    ...the petitioner is the person named in the request for extradition; and (D) Whether the petitioner is a fugitive. State v. McCurley, 627 So.2d 339, 344 (Miss.1993). ¶ 7. This case results from a dispute between two businessmen regarding whether the goods which Richards provided to Sonkin, un......
  • Fullerton v. McCord
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • October 21, 1999
    ...2963.06 (Ark.Code Ann. § 16-94-206) and found that under that statute, "fugitivity is not at issue." Adams, supra. 3 In State v. McCurley, 627 So.2d 339 (Miss.1993), the McCurleys petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus where it was alleged that they passed a bad check in Louisiana while in ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT