THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
JAY SCORATOW, 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.
Florida appealed a habeas corpus decision discharging Jay Scoratow from extradition to North Carolina. The appellate court reversed, holding that when an executive warrant is regular on its face and there is merely contradictory evidence about the accused's presence in the demanding state, the accused must conclusively overthrow the presumption against him to avoid extradition.
The court reversed the discharge, holding that an executive warrant regular on its face establishes a prima facie showing of propriety of extradition, and the burden is on the accused to conclusively overthrow the presumption against him. Where there is merely contradictory evidence on the issue of the accused's presence in or absence from the demanding state, the court should not discharge one arrested under the governor's warrant.
[1] An executive warrant for extradition, regular on its face and complying with statutory requirements, establishes a prima facie showing of the propriety of extradition.
[2] In habeas corpus proceedings challenging extradition, the burden is on the accused to conclusively overthrow the presumption of regularity of the governor's warrant.
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“an executive warrant which is regular on its face and which complies with the essential statutory requirements establishes a prima facie showing of the propriety of extradition”
Establishes the foundational legal principle that a facially regular warrant creates a presumption favoring extradition.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceScoratow was arrested under a Florida governor's warrant for extradition to North Carolina for an alleged crime. At the habeas corpus hearing, the tri…
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 Governor'S Warrant cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellee, Jay Scoratow, was the petitioner in the circuit court for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his extradition.
The trial judge heard contradictory evidence on the question of whether the petitioner was in North Carolina on the dates alleged in the governor’s warrant. The petitioner did not testify but offered evidence tending to prove that he was not in North Carolina at the time of the commission of the alleged crime. The state’s witness, a co-defendant, testified that he knew Scoratow and that both of them had participated in committing the crime charged. The court concluded that the State of Flori-da produced insufficient evidence to rebut the evidence presented by the petitioner as to his identity and presence in [or absence from] the State of North Carolina on the dates alleged in the governor’s warrant. Accordingly, the writ of habeas corpus was granted and the petitioner was discharged. We find error and reverse.
The law is well settled that an executive warrant which is regular on its face and which complies with the essential statutory requirements1 establishes a pri-ma facie showing of the propriety of extradition. State v. Diaz, 440 So. 2d 1318 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Moore v. State, 407 So. 2d 991, 992 (Pla. 3d DCA 1981), and cases cited therein. The burden is on the accused, in habeas corpus proceedings such as this one, to “overthrow conclusively the presumption against him.” State ex rel. Kimbro v. Starr, 65 So. 2d 67, 68 (Fla.1953); accord Turiano v. Butterworth, 416 So. 2d 1261 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Bonazzo v. Michell, 221 So. 2d 186 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). Furthermore, where there is merely contradictory evidence on the issue of the accused’s presence in or absence from the demanding state, the court should not discharge one arrested under the governor’s warrant. State ex rel. Kimbro v. Starr, supra; Turiano v. Butterworth, supra; Bonazzo v. Michell, supra; Buchanan v. State ex rel. Bartling, 185 So. 2d 509 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966).
We have found that there is competent evidence to support the governor’s rendition warrant and that the petitioner failed to overcome the prima facie case made by the warrant. Therefore the judgment discharging the accused, Scoratow, is reversed.
Reversed.
. See §§ 941.03; 941.07, Fla.Stat.(1983).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Josey v. Drew Galloway, 482 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…t did not involve either live testimony produced by the state, physical evidence properly authenticated, or affidavits based on personal knowledge or reciting the eviden-tiary facts supporting the conclusions stated therein. E.g., State v. Scoratow, 456 So. 2d 922 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Bonazzo v. Michell, 221 So. 2d 186 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969); Turiano v. Butterworth, 416 So. 2d 1261 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); State v. Starr, 65 So. 2d 67 (Fla.1953). We agree, therefore, that affidavits are admissible to create evi-denti…
-
Galloway v. Josey, 507 So. 2d 590 (Fla. 1987)…3d DCA 1986) (on rehearing), held that a petitioner cannot defeat the governor’s warrant if the evidence “does no more than create a conflict ... on the question of his whereabouts [during the crime].” Earlier, that same court in State v. Scoratow, 456 So. 2d 922, 923 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), had held that the burden is on the accused to “ ‘overthrow conclusively the presumption against him’ ” (quoting State ex rel. Kimbro v. Starr, 65 So. 2d 67, 68 (Fla.1953)); but the Scoratow court went on to say that “merely…
-
State v. Davila, 481 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…by the New York authorities. The law is well settled that an executive warrant which is regular on its face and complies with the essential statutory requirements establishes a prima facie showing of the propriety of extradition. State v. Scoratow, 456 So. 2d 922 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) and cases cited. The only “irregularity”- in the documents in the present case is a slight variance in the name on the warrant and charging documents and the petitioner’s name. It is generally held, however, that a charge is not i…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State ex rel. Kimbro v. Starr, 65 So. 2d 67 (Fla. 1953)
- Bonazzo v. Michell, 221 So. 2d 186 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)
- Moore v. State, 407 So. 2d 991 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Buchanan v. State of Fla. ex rel. Verne L. Bartling, 185 So. 2d 509 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)
- State v. Diaz, 440 So. 2d 1318 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Abel v. The United States, 416 So. 2d 1261 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- Orazio Turiano v. Butterworth, 416 So. 2d 1261 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)