Utt v. Warden, Baltimore City Jail
Decision Date | 14 April 1981 |
Docket Number | No. 1183,1183 |
Parties | David Harold UTT a/k/a Harold David Utt v. WARDEN, BALTIMORE CITY JAIL. |
Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
George E. Burns, Jr., Asst. Public Defender, with whom was Alan H. Murrell, Public Defender of Maryland on brief, for appellant.
Ann E. Singleton, Asst. Atty. Gen., with whom were Stephen H. Sachs, Atty. Gen. of Maryland, William A. Swisher, State's Atty. and Sandy Kemick, Asst. State's Atty., Baltimore City, on brief, for appellee.
Submitted before COUCH, MacDANIEL and WEANT, JJ.
In this appeal we are asked to consider whether the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution confers a right to have the assistance of counsel at a governor's extradition hearing. We shall hold that it does not.
Appellant David Harold Utt, a/k/a Harold David Utt, was wanted in Indiana on charges of theft. He fled that State but for one reason or another was apprehended by Maryland authorities (the record is not clear on the point). Word of appellant's arrest and detention reached Indiana authorities, whereupon the Governor of Indiana presented a demand for his extradition. On January 24, 1980, and in accordance with the Maryland Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, 1 an executive hearing was held to consider the matter. On January 28, 1980, the Governor of Maryland signed appellant's warrant of rendition.
By Order of the Baltimore City Court, entered March 3, 1980, appellant was remanded to the custody of the Warden of the Baltimore City Jail pending extradition. On March 10, 1980, appellant filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The petition was heard April 9, 1980, and the following stipulation entered into evidence:
Appellant raised but one issue: denial of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel at the Governor's hearing. The petition was denied and this appeal followed.
Appellant here asserts, as he asserted below, that the State's failure to afford him the assistance of counsel at the Governor's (extradition) hearing amounts to a denial of due process of law, in violation of his rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States. Appellee replies that there is no constitutional or statutory right to counsel at a governor's hearing so that, even assuming appellant was indigent (there was no such proffer in the case), the State was under no obligation to provide it. We are aware of no decision of this Court or of the Court of Appeals in which this issue has been resolved. 2
The Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of counsel is a fundamental constitutional right, which has been made applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1963). Since the Supreme Court's decision in Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 53 S.Ct. 55, 77 L.Ed. 158 (1932), it has been clear that these constitutional rights attach whenever adversary judicial proceedings have been initiated against a defendant. 3 Although the Supreme Court has emphasized that "a person's Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment right to counsel attaches only at or after the time that adversary judicial proceedings have been initiated against him," and not before, 4 this is not to suggest that the constitutional right to counsel only attaches at trial itself. Rather, as the Court has made clear, 5 the right attaches at any point in the judicial proceedings against a defendant which may be termed a "critical stage." Generally, a critical stage has been reached whenever constitutional or other rights can be asserted or waived; when the opportunities for an effective defense must be seized or lost, or where events occur that can affect the entire trial.
In United States v. Wade, supra, 388 U.S. at 226-27, 87 S.Ct. at 1932, 18 L.Ed.2d at 1149, the Court provided the following guide "... (Emphasis added.)
And in Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 122, 95 S.Ct. 854, 867, 43 L.Ed.2d 54, 70 (1975), the Supreme Court stated: "The Court has identified as 'critical stages' those pretrial procedures that would impair defense on the merits if the accused is required to proceed without counsel." (Citations omitted.)
In this case there can be no doubt that "adversary criminal proceedings" had been instituted against appellant prior to his extradition hearing (though the record does not precisely describe the manner in which he was charged), so the issue here thus resolves itself to whether such a hearing was a "critical stage" in those proceedings. Our resolution of this issue depends upon an analysis of "whether potential substantial prejudice to (appellant's) rights inheres in the particular confrontation (i. e., the Governor's hearing) and the ability of counsel to help avoid that prejudice," United States v. Wade, supra, 388 U.S. at 227, 87 S.Ct. at 1932, 18 L.Ed.2d at 1157 (1967), and so calls for a review of the purposes of extradition generally and of extradition procedure under Maryland law.
We note that extradition derives from the Constitution of the United States, Article IV, Section 2, clause 2 of which provides:
"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."
To implement this constitutional provision, Congress has provided in 18 U.S.C. § 3182 that:
The Supreme Court had occasion to consider the purposes and function of the Extradition Clause in Michigan v. Doran, 439 U.S. 282, 99 S.Ct. 530, 58 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978), when the Court was asked to determine whether the courts of an asylum state may nullify the executive grant of extradition on the ground that the demanding state had failed to show a factual basis for its charge supported by probable cause. It stated, at 439 U.S. 287-89, 99 S.Ct. 534-35, 58 L.Ed.2d 526-27:
"The Extradition Clause was intended to enable each state to bring offenders to trial as swiftly as possible in the state where the alleged offense was committed.... The purpose of the Clause was to preclude any state from becoming a sanctuary for fugitives from justice of another state and thus 'balkanize' the administration of criminal justice among the several states. It articulated, in mandatory language, the concepts of comity and full faith and credit, found in the immediately preceding clause of Art. IV. The Extradition Clause, like the Commerce Clause, served important national objectives of a newly developing country striving to foster national unity.... In the administration of justice, no less than in trade and commerce, national unity was thought to be served by de-emphasizing state lines for certain purposes, without impinging on essential state autonomy.
Interstate extradition was intended to be a summary and mandatory executive proceeding derived from the language of Art. IV, § 2, cl. 2, of the Constitution.... The Clause never contemplated that the asylum state was to conduct the kind of preliminary inquiry traditionally intervening between the initial arrest and trial.
Near the turn of the century this Court, after acknowledging the possibility that persons may give false information to the police or prosecutors and that a prosecuting attorney may act 'either wantonly or ignorantly,' concluded:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Utt v. State
...to the petitioner, David Harold Utt. Hence, we shall affirm the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals in Utt v. Warden, Balto. City Jail, 48 Md.App. 486, 427 A.2d 1092 (1981). The issues before us are (1) whether, as an indigent, Utt was unconstitutionally denied counsel at the Governor'......
-
Burton v. Mumford
...(1983) (using the Maryland Extradition Manual as a reference about the procedures adopted by Maryland); Utt v. Warden, Baltimore City Jail, 48 Md.App. 486, 493, 427 A.2d 1092 (1981) (using the Maryland Extradition Manual to demonstrate that an executive hearing in an extradition proceeding ......
-
State v. Loveday
... ... and Glenn L. Klavans, Asst. State's Atty., Baltimore City, on brief, for appellant ... Claudia A. Cortese, ... institution' includes Patuxent Institution and a local or regional jail ... ...
-
Williams v. Kavanagh
...be tried in the courts of that State, and not in those of the asylum State.524 U.S. 151, 153 (1998); see also Utt v. Warden, Baltimore City Jail, 48 Md. App. 486, 496 (1981) ("[N]either the executive nor the judiciary of the asylum state may so much as consider not to mention decide matters......
-
TERRITORIALITY IN AMERICAN CRIMINAL LAW.
...COMM'N 1936) (model extradition statute). The UCEA has been adopted by every state except Mississippi and South Carolina. Utt v. Warden, 427 A.2d 1092, 1096 n.6 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1981). (89.) See Ariela Gross & David R. Upham, Article IV, Section 2: Movement of Persons Throughout the ......