LARRY CECIL MCFARLAND, APPELLANT,
v.
DALE CARSON, SHERIFF OF DUVAL COUNTY, 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.
Appellant Larry McFarland challenges his arrest on an Arizona extradition warrant for sexual abuse of a minor, arguing procedural defects in the state's presentation of evidence at his habeas corpus hearing. The court affirms the denial of habeas relief, holding that the state's failure to formally introduce the warrants was not fundamental error where the appellant failed to object below and the state presented supporting evidence that the warrants were in order.
The failure to introduce the warrants was not reversible or fundamental error because: (1) the appellant did not object at the habeas hearing to the omission of the warrants or the admission of supporting evidence; (2) the state did introduce evidence supporting the warrants; and (3) the trial court had access to copies of the warrants attached to the petition and found them to be in order.
[1] Failure to introduce a governor's rendition warrant in a habeas corpus proceeding challenging it may be fatal to the state's case.
[2] When the state does not physically introduce a rendition warrant but introduces evidence supporting it, and the petitioner does not object, the non-introduction of the wa…
Previewing 2 of 5 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 governor's rendition warrant should be introduced into evidence in a habeas corpus proceeding brought to challenge it, and that failure to introduce the warrant may be fatal to the state's case”
Establishes the general rule that warrants should be formally introduced in extradition habeas proceedings
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMcFarland was arrested on October 14, 1985, in Florida on an Arizona fugitive warrant charging him with three counts of specified sexual conduct invol…
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 Fundamental Error cases and more on FLexlaw
WENTWORTH, Judge.
Appellant seeks review of an order denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus, which challenged his arrest on an extradition warrant. Appellant asserts reversible error in the state’s alleged failure to comply with the statutory requirements of sections 941.03 and 941.06, Florida Statutes, by introducing into evidence authenticated copies of the Florida and Arizona governor’s warrants or supporting documents. We affirm the order because appellant presents no authority for his contention that the absence of a court reporter requires reversal, and because the parties’ stipulated statement of the proceedings below reflects no objection to the lack of formal introduction of the warrants or documents. Under the circumstances before the court the omission is not shown to be fundamental error, and no other appellate issues have been preserved and argued.
Appellant was arrested October 14, 1985 in Florida on an Arizona fugitive warrant in which he was charged with three counts of specified sexual conduct involving a minor. He filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, challenging the Arizona warrant on asserted grounds that the warrant was legally insufficient, that appellant was not in Arizona at the time of the alleged offense, that the demanding state had attached a prior conviction with no relevance to the demand for extradition, that the grand jury bill was insufficient as a matter of law, and that appellant’s home was in Florida. In an amended petition, appellant asserted the same grounds and attached the affidavit of David Dillier, who stated that appellant was with him in California during late February and March 1985, the time period during which appellant was charged with having committed the alleged offenses in Arizona.
At the hearing on the petition, appellant introduced only Dillier's affidavit into evidence. The state then introduced two sworn statements from appellant’s former employer and a former coworker in Arizona, stating that appellant had been in continuous employment at DH Construction Company in Tuscon, Arizona, from June 1984 through April 1985 without leave of absence of any extent. The court then reviewed the affidavits, the court file containing copies of the Florida and Arizona warrants attached to appellant’s petition, found the warrants to be in order, and entered an order denying the petition for writ of habeas corpus on the evidence and exhibits before him.
We recognize “that the governor’s rendition warrant should be introduced into evidence in a habeas corpus proceeding brought to challenge it, and that failure to introduce the warrant may be fatal to the state’s case.” Fauls v. Sheriff of Leon County, 394 So. 2d 117, 119 (Fla.1981). In Fauls, the state introduced evidence supporting the warrant at the hearing, but did not introduce the warrant itself. The court found: “However, when the state does not physically introduce the warrant but does introduce ... evidence supporting it and the petitioner does not object, the nonintro-duction of the warrant is not fundamental error,” and petitioner could not raise that issue for the first time on appeal.
In this case the state introduced two sworn statements in support of the warrants without introducing the warrants, copies of which had been submitted by appellant’s petition. The stipulated statement of the parties presented here indicates no objection by appellant at any time during the hearing to the state’s failure to introduce the warrants, to the admission of the supporting evidence, or to the trial court’s evaluation of the legal sufficiency of the copies of the warrants appellant presented with his petition. In the absence of any objection below appellant cannot on this appeal raise the issue of the state’s failure to introduce the warrants, and the state’s introduction of the sworn statements in support of the warrants without having first introduced the warrants was not fundamental error. Fauls, supra.
We find no merit in appellant’s bare argument, which also appears to be presented initially here, that the state was required to provide a court reporter at the habeas corpus proceeding.
The order is affirmed.
ZEHMER, J., and HALL, J. LEWIS, JR., Associate Judge, concur.