STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
PAUL PERRERA AND MARJORIE PERRERA, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the identity of names on an extradition warrant is prima facie evidence of the arrested person's identity, and this evidence is not overcome by the arrested person's refusal to admit identity.
Appellees, Paul and Marjorie Perrera, sought habeas corpus relief, arguing the State failed to prove their identity with extraneous proof beyond the e…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Identity cases and more on FLexlaw
COWART, Judge.
At the hearing on the petitions of appel-lees, Paul and Marjorie Perrera for writs of habeas corpus the only evidence presented was the extradition papers which named Paul and Marjorie Perrera as the persons sought. The trial court accepted appellees’ argument that the State had failed to meet its burden to establish by extraneous proof that the appellees were the same persons named in the extradition warrant and granted the petitions for habeas corpus. The State appeals. We reverse.
While it is generally held that the State has the burden of proving the identity of a person arrested for extradition as the person for whom the warrant was issued, evidence that the arrested person’s name is identical to the name contained in the extradition warrant is prima facie evidence that the person arrested is the person named in the warrant.1 Obviously the strength of the inference of identity arising from the identity of names varies with the rarity of the names and their combination.
However, when the name of the person in custody is the same as that on the warrant the prima facie evidence is not overcome by the mere refusal of the arrested person to admit he or she is the same person named in the warrant and a petition for habeas corpus should be denied. Brunelle v. Norveil, 433 So. 2d 19 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983), Solano v. State, 417 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); State ex rel. Sklaroff v. Purdy, 219 So. 2d 723 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969). The order granting the petitions for ha-beas corpus is REVERSED and REMANDED.
ORFINGER, C.J., and WATSON, Associate Judge, concur. . See, e.g., 93 A.L.R.2d 912, §§ 10-11; 39A C.J.S. Habeas Corpus § 192; 39 Am.Jur.2d Habeas Corpus, § 80; 31 Am.Jur.2d Extradition, § 67.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hlad v. State, 565 So. 2d 762 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)…Enhanced DUI charges involve both an "identity” problem and a "right to counsel” problem. The legislature has contemplated neither problem. As to the identity problem, see Thompson v. State, 66 Fla. 206, 63 So. 423 (1913); compare State v. Perrera, 443 So. 2d 1016 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); see Annotations: Evidence of Identity for Purposes of Statute as to Enhanced Punishment in Case of Prior Conviction, 11 A.L.R.2d 870 (1950). .This duty is why our first and oldest criminal rule (now 3.850) requires the defendan…
-
State v. Davila, 481 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…tion of this case. First, where there is a material discrepancy between the name contained in extradition documents and the actual name of the accused, the documents standing alone are not sufficient to make a prima facie case. Cf. State v. Perrera, 443 So. 2d 1016 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983) (an identity of names raises presumption that petitioner is same person named in warrant); Solano v. State, 417 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (same). Where there is a discrepancy in the names but the extradition documents also in…
-
Wright v. State, 497 So. 2d 1313 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)…Bob Wright” sought by the warrant. In the absence of any evidence that he is not the person whose name is identical to his, he cannot prevail. State ex rel Sklaroff v. Purdy, 219 So. 2d 723 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1969). As the court said in State v. Perrera, 443 So. 2d 1016 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983), the case relied on by appellant: While it is generally held that the State has the burden of proving the identity of a person arrested for extradition as the person for whom the warrant was issued, evidence that the arrested p…
Authorities Cited
- State of Fla. ex rel. Martin Sklaroff v. Purdy, 219 So. 2d 723 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
- Brunelle v. C.L. Norvell, 433 So. 2d 19 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)
- German Solano v. State, 417 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)