TERRANCE M. BRITTON, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
Terrance Britton appealed the denial of his habeas corpus petition challenging defective extradition papers from New York to Florida. The Florida District Court of Appeal held that the extradition documents failed to comply with statutory requirements because they included only a certificate of conviction rather than an authenticated copy of the actual judgment or sentence, and reversed the lower court's decision.
The court held that the extradition documents were insufficient to comply with section 941.03, Florida Statutes. Because Britton had been tried, convicted, and sentenced, the statute required an authenticated copy of the judgment of conviction or the sentence imposed, not merely a certificate of conviction or conclusory statement about the court's action.
[1] Extradition documents must correspond to the stage of the legal proceedings against the demanded person.
[2] When a person has been tried, convicted, and sentenced, extradition demands must be accompanied by a copy of the judgment of conviction or sentence imposed, not merely a…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the document submitted with the demand must correspond to the stage in the proceedings to which the case against a defendant had progressed”
Establishes the foundational requirement that extradition documents must match the procedural stage of the case
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioner Britton was subject to an extradition demand from New York to Florida. The documents transmitted by the Governor of New York included an in…
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 Judgment Of Conviction cases and more on FLexlaw
LEHAN, Judge.
This is an appeal from the denial of a petition for writ of habeas corpus, which alleged that defective extradition papers were transmitted from the Governor of New York to the Governor of Florida. Petitioner contends that there was inadequate compliance with section 941.03, Florida Statutes (1981), requiring that a demand for extradition be accompanied by certain documentation. We find various of the grounds for petitioner’s contention to be hypertechnical and without merit. See State v. Soto, 423 So. 2d 362 (Fla.1982). But we agree with one of those grounds and therefore reverse.
The documents annexed to the demand from New York included an indictment, an arrest warrant for sentencing, and a certificate of conviction. Under Blasi v. State, 192 So. 2d 307 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966), the document submitted with the demand must correspond to the stage in the proceedings to which the case against a defendant had progressed.
[I]f the person demanded has been tried, convicted and sentenced, and had broken the terms of his probation, then the demanding state is required to accompany the demand with a copy of the sentence imposed, together with a statement that the person claimed has broken the terms of his probation, and, in such event, it is not necessary that the demand be accompanied by a copy of the indictment or information under which the person was tried and convicted. In other words, the alternative applicable to a particular case must be selected and used.
Id. at 309.
Since the record indicates that the extradition proceedings here occurred after the petitioner had been tried, convicted, and sentenced, an authenticated “copy of a judgment of conviction or of a sentence imposed in execution thereof” must be provided. § 941.03, Fla.Stat. (1981).
In the case at bar, no such copy was provided. Instead, there was a certificate of conviction signed by the clerk of the New York court. However much one may rationalize that the clerk of a court is capable of writing a conclusion of what happened in his court, the fact remains that this certificate is only that — a conclusion. We are not entitled to ignore the statutory requirement in issue by characterizing it as hypertechnical. If the legislature intended that something less than the document representing the official court action of conviction or sentence would be sufficient and that the risk, however small, of a mistake in someone’s conclusion as to the effect of that court action was acceptable, we must presume section 941.03 would have said so. The law commonly requires actual documents, as opposed to conclusory statements concerning those documents, and we see no justification for requiring less in an extradition proceeding involving the deprivation of liberty when the statutory requirement is explicit. Therefore the documents are insufficient to comply with the statute.
REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT HEREWITH.
SCHEB, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER, J„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Shapiro v. State, 456 So. 2d 968 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)…strate. He argues that since a warrant had been issued, it must be selected as the supporting document for extradition and must be supported by an affidavit before a committing magistrate. In support of his argument, he cites to us Britton v. State, 447 So. 2d 458 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984), and Blasi v. State, 192 So. 2d 307 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966). His reliance on Britton and Blast is based on the principle cited in those cases that there must be submitted for the purpose of extradition, under section 941.03, those doc…
-
Henry v. State, 496 So. 2d 832 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)…ereof.” § 941.03, Fla.Stat. (1985). Since the documents accompanying the demand for extradition of Henry did not comply with the statutory requirements, the trial court erred in denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. See Britton v. State, 447 So. 2d 458 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984).1 [*833] The state argues that documentation to support a demand for extradition is not necessary in the case of an absconding parolee where, as here, the parolee executed a waiver of his right to resist extradition as a condition…
-
Lawrence v. Luster, 575 So. 2d 220 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…tead of forwarding an authenticated copy of the judgment of conviction, the California authorities forwarded a clerk’s certificate. A certificate of conviction signed by a clerk of court does not meet the mandate of section 941.03. Britton v. State, 447 So. 2d 458 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). Accordingly, the order granting the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is AFFIRMED. JORGENSON and GODERICH, JJ., concur.…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- State v. Soto, 423 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 1982)
- Blasi v. State, 192 So. 2d 307 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966)