BROWN v. GRIMES, Sheriff., 214 Ga. 388, 104 S.E.2.d 907 (1958)
Linked as:
Text
Paul Webb, Solicitor-General, Eugene L. Tiller, contra.Chester E. Wallace, for plaintiff in error.
The extradition warrant under which the petitioner was held was not supported by legally sufficient documents from the demanding State, and the introduction in evidence of such documents by the petitioner overcame the prima facie presumption of the validity of the warrant.
No oral testimony was introduced on the hearing. The respondent introduced in evidence the warrant of the Governor of Georgia, which charged the petitioner with being a fugitive from justice from the State of Indiana, charged with committing "the crime of vehicle taking and escape."
The petitioner introduced in evidence the supporting documents for this warrant, as follows: (1) An application to the Governor of Indiana for the issuance of a requisition to the Governor of Georgia for the apprehension of Charles Brown, charged by an affidavit with the crime of "escape." This application asserts that Charles Brown was committed to the Indiana Reformatory by the Franklin County Circuit Court on March 11, 1943, being convicted of vehicle taking, and sentenced to an indeterminate period of not less than one year and not more than ten years; that he escaped from the reformatory, and is now confined in the United States Penitentiary at Atlanta, Georgia, where he is to be released on April 15, 1958, and will be turned over to the Sheriff of Fulton County, Georgia. William Eitelman is nominated as a proper person to be appointed to receive the alleged fugitive. This application was signed by Melvin B. Thornburg, Prosecuting Attorney. Stamped on the face of the application is the following: "Approved the 15th day of April, 1958. [Signed] Harold W. Handley, Governor, State of Indiana." (2) An affidavit by Robert J. Duncan, stating that the facts set forth in the foregoing application are true. This affidavit was dated April 14, 1958, and sworn to before Russell E. Stewart, Circuit Court Judge, 50th Judicial Circuit. (3) An affidavit entitled "Affidavit for Escape" by Robert J. Duncan, dated April 14, 1958, sworn to before the same circuit court judge, as follows: "Robert J. Duncan, being first duly sworn upon his oath, says that he is informed and believes that on or about the 17th day of January, 1956, at and in the County of Madison, State of Indiana, the defendant, Charles Brown, did unlawfully and feloniously escape from the Indiana Reformatory, having been committed to the Indiana Reformatory at Pendleton, Indiana by the Franklin County Circuit Court on the 11th day of March, 1943, having been convicted of vehicle taking, and being committed for an indeterminate period of not less than one year and not more than ten years, all being contrary to the form of the Statute in such cases made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the State of Indiana." (4) Authentication affidavits by the Clerk and Judge of the Madison Circuit Court. (5) Certified copy of warrant by the Clerk of Madison County, Indiana, to the sheriff of that county, commanding the arrest of Charles Brown on a charge of "escape."
The trial judge remanded the petitioner to the custody of the respondent, and the exception is to that judgment.
"When, in the trial of a habeas corpus case, it appears that the respondent holds the petitioner in custody under an executive warrant based upon an extradition proceeding, and the warrant is regular on its face, the burden is cast upon the petitioner to show some valid and sufficient reason why the warrant should not be executed. The presumption is that the Governor has complied with the constitution and the law, and this presumption continues until the contrary appears." Blackwell v. Jennings, 211 Ga. 662 (87 S. E. 2d 849), it was held that, without such demand and authentication by the chief executive of the demanding State, the chief executive of the asylum State has no authority to issue an extradition warrant. Compare Ex Parte Anderson, 135 Texas Crim. Rep. 291.
The documents under which the extradition warrant was issued were insufficient to support the warrant, and the trial judge erred in remanding the petitioner to the respondent.
Judgment reversed. All the Justices concur.
1958
Sponsored links
