RAYMOND BONAZZO, APPELLANT,
v.
ALLEN B. MICHELL, SHERIFF OF BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND THE STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
Raymond Bonazzo appealed an order quashing his habeas corpus petition and remanding him into custody pending extradition to New York on robbery, grand larceny, and conspiracy charges. The court affirmed, holding that conflicting evidence regarding the defendant's presence at the time of the alleged crimes does not meet his burden to overcome the presumption of fugitive status created by the executive rendition warrant.
The court affirmed the trial court's order, holding that conflicting evidence on the defendant's presence or absence from the demanding state does not meet his burden to overcome the presumption against him created by the executive warrant. The court must remand rather than discharge when faced with contradictory evidence, and the trial court properly determined there was competent evidence to support the rendition warrant.
“In an extradition proceeding a prima facie case is made by the executive rendition warant, and the burden rests with the accused to overcome it by competent proof.”
Establishes the legal standard that the executive warrant creates a presumption and shifts the burden to the defendant
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBonazzo was charged in New York with second-degree robbery, grand larceny, and conspiracy allegedly occurring on September 29, 1967. An eyewitness ide…
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 Rendition Warrant cases and more on FLexlaw
Defendant appeals from an order of the trial court quashing a writ of habeas corpus and remanding him into custody. The writ was issued pursuant to his petition challenging an executive rendition warrant issued upon demand of the State of New York. We affirm.
Defendant’s points involve (1) sufficiency of the evidence as to his identity, presence in demanding state at time of alleged offenses and whether he was a fugitive from justice, and (2) sufficiency of the executive warrant and related papers.
Defendant was charged with the offenses of robbery (second degree), grand larceny (second degree) and conspiracy (second degree), allegedly occurring on September 29, 1967. An eyewitness to the offenses testified and identified the defendant, establishing the date to be September 29, *1881967. He later vacillated by stating he was not positive of the exact date since, “that is the police department’s job.”
The defendant produced testimony to his presence in Florida on September 29, 1967, thereby creating a conflict as to the exact date of the alleged crimes.
In an extradition proceeding a prima facie case is made by the executive rendition warant, and the burden rests with the accused to overcome it by competent proof.1 His guilt or innocence is not to be inquired into except as it may be involved in identifying him as the person charged.2
Thus, the purpose of a habeas corpus proceeding challenging a rendition warrant in extradition is to decide the issue of whether there exists any competent evidence to support it. It does not entail testing the sufficiency of evidence on the stated charge.3
Where there is contradictory evidence on the question of an accused’s presence in or absence from the demanding state, a court should not discharge the accused but should remand him. Conflicting evidence does not meet the burden cast on the accused to overcome the presumption against him.4
In respect to whether an accused is a fugitive from justice, a presumption arises upon issuance of an executive warrant that he is such a fugitive. This presumption prevails unless clearly refuted.5
The evidence herein was conflicting and the trial court correctly quashed the writ of habeas corpus and remanded the defendant. Resolution of the conflicts is subject to proper treatment in the demanding state.
We are satisfied the evidence has that degree of certainty which would justify a magistrate in committing.6
Even assuming the alleged offenses occurred on some other date than that alleged, the demanding state, as does ours, recognizes that a nonfatal variance may exist between the date charged and the date shown.7 There is abundant evidence the defendant was in the demanding state at time of the alleged offenses, irrespective of the exact date.
The final point concerns sufficiency of the rendition warrant and allied papers, however, the defendant has not favored us with specific objections thereto. Neither was this point raised at the trial level. Nevertheless, our review of the documents including the affidavit, warrant and indictment shows them to be sufficient.8
Accordingly the order appealed from is affirmed.
Affirmed.
CROSS and OWEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Di Piero v. State, 300 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)…ding challenging a rendition warrant in extradition is to decide the issue of whether there exists any competent evidence to support it. It does not entail testing the sufficiency of evidence on the stated charge.” Bonazzo v. Michell, Fla.App. 1969, 221 So. 2d 186, 188. If this be the purpose of such a proceeding, and we believe that it is, then the warrant itself should have been introduced at the hearing in order to test the competency of the evidence supporting it. Although the appellant in his petition r…
-
Forrest E. Honea v. Monroe Brannen, 242 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Bonazzo v. Michell, Fla. App.1969, 221 So. 2d 186. PIERCE, Acting C. J., and MANN and McNULTY, JJ., concur.…
-
Brunelle v. C.L. Norvell, 433 So. 2d 19 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)…prove that he was present in Florida on this date does no more than create a conflict in the evidence on the question of his whereabouts. The court’s duty in this situation is to remand him to the custody of the demanding state. Bonazzo v. Michell, 221 So. 2d 186 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). AFFIRMED. DOWNEY and HERSEY, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Chase v. The State of Fla. ex rel. H. L. Burch, 93 Fla. 963 (Fla. 1927)
- White v. Penton, 92 Fla. 837 (Fla. 1926)
- State ex rel. Kimbro v. Starr, 65 So. 2d 67 (Fla. 1953)
- Crusoe v. State, 183 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)
- State v. McGreary, 123 Fla. 9 (Fla. 1936)
- Buchanan v. State of Fla. ex rel. Verne L. Bartling, 185 So. 2d 509 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)
- State of Fla. ex rel. Robert Shirley Owens v. Boyer, 207 So. 2d 29 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)
- Rion v. Purdy, 212 So. 2d 304 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)