United States v. Matus, Civ. A. No. 4373.

• Decision Date: 07 April 1954
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 4373.
• Citation: 127 F. Supp. 282
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
• Parties: UNITED STATES ex rel. Watson MOULTHROPE, v. Edward MATUS.

127 F. Supp. 282

UNITED STATES ex rel. Watson MOULTHROPE, v. Edward MATUS.

Civ. A. No. 4373.

United States District Court, D. Connecticut.

April 7, 1954.

William S. Gordon, Jr., Hartford, Conn., for petitioner.

Albert S. Bill, State's Atty., for Hartford County, Hartford, Conn., for respondent.

SMITH, Chief Judge.

On petition for habeas corpus, an order to show cause issued and after a number of postponements agreed to by counsel, petitioner was produced in open court on March 22, 1954, testified, and the matter was argued by counsel for petitioner and by the State's Attorney for Hartford County for respondent. The facts are substantially undisputed and are found to be as follows:

1. In December 1925, the petitioner was convicted of the crime of robbery by a Florida court and on February 9, 1926 was sentenced to serve five years in the Florida State Prison.

2. After he had served approximately two years, the Florida Board of Pardons, on January 23, 1928, granted him a conditional pardon, "upon the express understanding and condition that he lead a sober, peaceable and law-abiding life."

3. The petitioner then went to Connecticut, where, on May 14, 1929, he was convicted of robbery with violence and sentenced to a long term in the Connecticut State Prison.

4. While serving this sentence, he escaped and returned to Florida where, on March 19, 1930, he was convicted of the crime of murder in a Florida criminal court.

5. On or prior to March 26, 1930, the Governor of the State of Connecticut made requisition upon the Governor of the State of Florida for the return of the petitioner to the State of Connecticut to answer to the charge of escape from prison and the further charge of theft of motor vehicle.

6. On March 27, 1930, after the petitioner had been convicted of the murder charge but before he had been sentenced thereon, the Governor of Florida honored the requisition of the Governor of Connecticut and issued a Warrant of Extradition.

7. Thereafter on the same day, the petitioner was sentenced by the Florida court to imprisonment for life, and the court issued a mittimus commanding his delivery to the Florida State Prison to carry said sentence into effect.

8. The mittimus was given to a Florida Deputy Sheriff who took immediate custody of the petitioner in the courtroom.

9. Instead of delivering the petitioner to the Florida State Prison, the Florida Deputy Sheriff, in the company of representatives of the State of Connecticut, took the petitioner out the back door of the courthouse, drove him around Jacksonville, Florida, for about two hours while the petitioner's attorney was seeking a writ of habeas corpus in another Florida court, and then drove the petitioner to the Florida-Georgia state line, where he formally turned him over to the representatives of the State of Connecticut.

10. The petitioner had made a statement in open court and to the Florida authorities that he was fighting extradition to Connecticut until he had served his Florida sentence, and that he objected to being delivered to the Connecticut authorities.

11. The petitioner was removed from Florida and taken to Connecticut with the permission and assistance of the State of Florida and its duly authorized officers and agents and was removed from Florida under compulsory process at a time when the State of Florida had him in its custody.

12. In Connecticut, the petitioner was tried and convicted of the crimes of escape and theft of motor vehicle and on April 11, 1930 was sentenced to a long term in State Prison, where he has since remained.

13. On June 1, 1948, the Florida Board of Pardons withdrew the conditional pardon granted the petitioner in 1928 and ordered his return to custody to serve the unexpired portion of his original robbery sentence and to serve the sentence of life imprisonment for murder.

14. On October 8, 1949, the Governor of Florida made requisition on the Governor of Connecticut for the return of the petitioner as a fugitive from justice, in that he "stands convicted of the Crime of Robbery, as shown by information found, Record of Conviction, Sentence, Conditional Pardon and Breach of Pardon, committed in Dade County," Florida; the June 1, 1948 action of the Florida Board of Pardons was attached to the requisition of the Governor of Florida.

15. Thereupon the Connecticut Governor issued his warrant to the respondent, Edward Matus, then a Connecticut State Policeman, requiring delivery of the petitioner to the Florida authorities.

16. The petitioner was forcibly and against his will delivered to the representatives of Connecticut while in the custody of Florida and, with the permission and assistance of the State of Florida, was removed from Florida and taken to Connecticut.

17. The petitioner, while in Florida's custody, upon conviction of a crime in Florida, left the jurisdiction not only other than voluntarily but by Florida's compulsory process.

18. Petitioner's breach of the pardon of January 23, 1928, was committed prior to his delivery to the representatives of the State of Connecticut on March 27, 1930; and the State of Florida had full power to proceed against the petitioner therefor while he was in Florida's custody prior to his delivery to the Connecticut representatives.

19. Petitioner sought and obtained, in the Superior Court for Hartford County, a writ of habeas corpus. Judgment was entered dismissing the writ and remanding petitioner into respondent's custody. On appeal to the Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut, no error was found. 139 Conn. 272, 93 A.2d 149.

Application for a writ of certiorari was denied by the Supreme Court of the United States April 6, 1953. 345 U.S. 926, 73 S.Ct. 785, 97 L.Ed. 1357.

This application followed on the succeeding day.

Conclusions of Law

1. The court has jurisdiction of the parties and subject matter of the action.

2. The petitioner is legally in custody of respondent on a valid warrant of extradition.

3. Respondent is entitled to judgment dismissing the petition and discharging the order to show...