GARY E. BENTZEL, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
SCHWARTZ, Judge.
The defendant appeals from a judgment which denied his petition for habeas corpus and ordered his extradition to Pennsylvania. The record shows that the Governor’s rendition warrant which formed the basis of the extradition proceeding was never introduced into evidence at the hearing below. We hold, on the authority of Di Piero v. State, 300 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1974) and Simpson v. Woodham, 332 So. 2d 693 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976) that the warrant was indispensable, and that the failure to introduce it was fatal, to the state’s case. The judgment below is therefore reversed and the cause remanded with directions to discharge the defendant.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fauls v. Sheriff OF Leon Cnty., 394 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 1981)…, Justice. The First District Court of Appeal has certified that its en banc decision in Fauls v. Sheriff of Leon County, Florida, 384 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980), conflicts with the Third District Court of Appeal's decision in Bentzel v. State, 365 So. 2d 441 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). The issue is whether the trial court committed fundamental error that could be raised for the first time on appeal when it failed to grant habeas corpus in an extradition proceeding after the state failed to physically introduce…1 / 2
-
Fauls v. Sheriff OF Leon Cnty., 384 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)…ented, and that the order of the trial court shows on its face the existence of the rendition warrant from which the court’s determination of validity was made. Finally, the state acknowledges that Di Piero, and Simpson, as well as Bentzel v. State, 365 So. 2d 441 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1978), appear to establish a rule of law supporting appellant’s position. However, the state urges that this court should recede from its decision in Simpson, and adopt the reasoning and conclusion reached by Judge Robert P. Smith, in…1 / 2
-
Hudson v. State, 388 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…nt and supporting papers were not actually marked as an exhibit they were not admitted into evidence, citing three cases: DiPiero v. State, 300 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); Simpson v. Woodham, 332 So. 2d 693 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976);1 Bentzel v. State, 365 So. 2d 441 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). We find the instant case distinguishable from the cited cases because in those there was no reference that the rendition warrant and supporting papers were introduced into evidence and they were not physically in the file. See: D…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Di Piero v. State, 300 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Simpson v. Woodham, 332 So. 2d 693 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)