THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
SCOTT KEVIN WHEATON, 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 sought to extradite Scott Kevin Wheaton to Virginia based on a new indictment for crimes allegedly occurring after a prior extradition proceeding. The trial court released Wheaton based on res judicata, but the appellate court reversed, holding that subsequent indictments for different crimes cannot be barred by a prior extradition proceeding.
A prior extradition proceeding does not constitute res judicata for subsequent indictments based on crimes allegedly occurring after those involved in the earlier proceedings. The inclusion of the original indictment in the extradition request does not invalidate the new extradition request.
[1] A prior habeas corpus proceeding does not have res judicata effect on subsequent indictments based on crimes that allegedly occurred subsequent to those involved in the e…
[2] The attachment of an original indictment from prior litigation to a subsequent extradition request does not invalidate the recent extradition request.
Previewing 2 of 3 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 subsequent indictments are based on crimes that allegedly occurred subsequent to those involved in the earlier proceedings and therefore the first proceeding could not be res judicata.”
Establishes the court's core holding that res judicata does not apply to subsequent indictments for different crimes occurring after the original conduct.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWheaton had been the subject of a prior extradition proceeding in 1982 (Wheaton v. State, 420 So. 2d 604). A Virginia grand jury subsequently indicted…
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 Executive Rendition Warrant cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Following our opinion and decision reported in Wheaton v. State, 420 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), the appellee was again indicted by a grand jury in a different county in the State of Virginia, and he was subsequently arrested in Florida on an executive rendition warrant. The appellee again instituted a habeas corpus proceeding which resulted in a trial court order of release based on the doctrine of res judica-ta. Counsel for the appellee urges affirmance based upon the following authorities. Crane v. Hayes, 253 So. 2d 435 (Fla.1971); State v. Drumright, 116 Fla. 496, 156 So. 721 (1934); Stack v. State, 333 So. 2d 509 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). We reverse and find these authorities not applicable to the instant case.
The subsequent indictments are based on crimes that allegedly occurred subsequent to those involved in the earlier proceedings and therefore the first proceeding could not be res judicata. See and compare Kurtz v. State, 22 Fla. 36 (1886); Stack v. State, supra; 28 Fla.Jur.2d Habeas Corpus sec. 121 p. 570. It is true that the papers forwarded to the chief executive of the State of Florida did have attached thereto the original indictment which was the subject matter of the prior litigation. This will not invalidate the recent extradition request. See the following authority. State v. Soto, 423 So. 2d 362 (Fla.1982); Freeman v. Blackburn, 92 So. 2d 262 (Fla.1957).
Therefore, for the reasons above stated the final order discharging the petitioner/appellee herein be and the same is hereby reversed with directions to the trial court to remand the custody of the appellee to the Virginia authorities.
Reversed with directions.
BARKDULL and NESBITT, JJ., concur. DANIEL S. PEARSON, J., concurs in result.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State ex rel. Joe Cacciatore v. Drumbright, 116 Fla. 496 (Fla. 1934)
- Crane v. Hayes, 253 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 1971)
- Kurtz v. State, 22 Fla. 36 (Fla. 1886)
- State v. Soto, 423 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 1982)
- McKinley Freeman v. Blackburn, 92 So. 2d 262 (Fla. 1957)
- Wheaton v. State, 420 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Stack v. State of Fla. ex rel. Norman Kaye, 333 So. 2d 509 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)