STATE EX REL. KIMBRO ET AL.
v.
STARR, SHERIFF
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.
In this extradition habeas corpus case, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's remand of appellants to custody pending extradition to Alabama to face assault charges. The court held that when evidence regarding the defendant's presence in the demanding state is in direct conflict, the trial court must remand the accused without resolving the evidentiary conflict, leaving such resolution to the demanding state's courts.
When evidence on the issue of the accused's presence in the demanding state is in direct conflict, the trial court's plain duty is to remand the accused. The court need not make a determination on the weight of the evidence or resolve the genuine conflict; it need only determine whether competent evidence exists to sustain the extradition warrant. Appellate courts will not review such remand orders, as resolution of factual conflicts is the duty of the demanding state's trial court.
“it is not overthrown by the mere fact that, upon the point of the presence vel non of the accused in the demanding state when the crime was committed, the evidence is contradictory.”
Establishes that contradictory evidence alone does not discharge the accused from an extradition warrant
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants Kimbro and others were arrested under a Florida Governor's extradition warrant and sought habeas corpus relief. They were charged with assa…
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 Fugitive From Justice cases and more on FLexlaw
SEBRING, Justice.
The appellants instituted a hábeas corpus proceeding in the court' below to contest a warrant of extradition issued by the Governor of Florida for their return to the State of Alabama to answer an indictment charging them with the crime of assault with intent to commit murder. The issue presented by the petition for habeas corpus and the evidence submitted in support thereof was as to whether the appellants were present in the demanding state at the time of the commission of the crime. On this issue the evidence offered by the contending parties was in direct conflict. At the close of the hearing the trial court remanded the appellants to custody and this appeal followed.
It is the rule that on a habeas corpus proceeding to contest the validity and propriety of a rendition warrant issued by a governor in an extradition hearing, the burden rests with the. accused to overcome by competent proof the prima facie case made by the extradition warrant. Kuney v. State, 88 Fla. 354, 102 So. 547; Chase v. State, 93 Fla. 963, 113 So. 103, 54 A.L.R. 271; In re Cook, C.C., 49 F. 833, affirmed 146 U.S. 183, 13 S.Ct. 40, 36 L.Ed. 934; People ex rel. Bell v. Mulcahy, 392 Ill. 290, 64 N.E. 2d 474, certiorari denied 327 U.S. 800, 66 S.Ct. 901, 90 L.Ed. 1025; State ex rel. Gaines v. Westhues, 318 Mo. 928, 2 S.W. 2d 612.
The evidence which will justify remanding the accused need have only that degree of certainty which would justify a magistrate in committing. Ex parte Jowell, 87 Tex.Cr.R. 556, 223 S.W. 456, 11 A.L.R. 1407; Ex parte Flournoy, 310 Mo. 355, 275 S.W. 923. Thus the proceeding is a summary, rather than plenary, one, in accord with the well-established general principle that the writ of habeas corpus should not be used to test the sufficiency of evidence on which a charge may have been based, but merely to contest the existence of any competent evidence in support thereof. White v. Penton, 92 Fla. 837, 110 So. 533.
The alleged fugitive may, of course, deny the jurisdictional fact that he is a fugitive from justice, or that he was personally present in the demanding state at the time when the crime is charged to have been committed. Chase v. State, supra; Scott, on Extradition, Section 52; Annotation 11 A.L.R. 1410. But granting that the prisoner may submit evidence that he was not within the demanding state at the time in question, it is clear that the burden is on him to overthrow conclusively the presumption against him. And “it is not overthrown by the mere fact that, upon the point of the presence vel non of the accused in the demanding state when the crime was committed, the evidence is contradictory.” Ex parte Pelinski, Mo. Sup., 213 S.W. 809, 810.
The court, therefore, is not required, upon petition for writ of habeas corpus in an extradition proceeding, to make a ruling on that issue upon the weight of the evidence, nor is it required to resolve any genuine conflict. Its duty is to determine if there is competent evidence to sustain the warrant.
“ * * * the court will not discharge a defendant arrested under the governor’s warrant where there is merely contradictory evidence on the subject of presence in or absence from the state * * Munsey v. Clough, 196 U.S. 364, 25 S.Ct. 282, 285, 49 L.Ed. 515.
When, as in the instant case, the evidence on the issue is in direct conflict, it is the plain duty of the court to enter an order of remand. See U. S. ex rel. Austin v. Williams, D.C., 6 F. 2d 13; State ex rel. Rogers v. Murnane, 172 Minn. 401, 215 N.W. 863; Chandler v. Sipes, 103 Neb. 111, 170 N.W. 604; People ex rel. Buxton v. Jeremiah, 364 Ill. 274, 4 N.E. 2d 373; Ex parte Wallace, 265 Mass. 101, 163 N.E. 870.
Moreover, in such a case an appellate court will not determine the question on appeal from an order of remand,, as the duty of resolving the conflicts is one for the trial court in the demanding state. People ex rel. Hauptmann v. Hanley, 242 App.Div. 257, 274 N.Y.S. 824.
The appellants have presented two other questions on this appeal for our determination. However, these questions were not presented in the court below and, under the allegations of the petition for the writ, could not have been presented. Under these circumstances it would be improper for us to decide the questions here.
The judgment appealed from should be affirmed.
It is so ordered.
ROBERTS, C. J., and TERRELL , and THOMAS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (19 total)
-
Bonazzo v. Michell, 221 So. 2d 186 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)…theless, 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. . State ex rel. Kimbro v. Starr, Fla.1953, 65 So. 2d 67. . F.S.1967, Section 941.20, F.S.A. . White v. Penton, 1926, 92 Fla. 837, 110 So. 533. . Buchanan v. State, Fla.App.1966, 185 So. 2d 509; Rion v. Purdy, Fla.App.1968, 212 So. 2d 304. . Chase v. State, 1927, 93 Fla. 963, 113 So. 103, 54 A.L.R. 27…1 / 2
-
Di Piero v. State, 300 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)…the officer to arrest and detain the petitioner.” State ex rel. Huston v. Clark, 121 Fla. 161, 163 So. 471, 472 (1935) See also Chase v. State ex rel. Burch, 93 Fla. 963, 113 So. 103, 54 A.L.R. 271 (1927) ; State ex rel. Kimbro v. Starr, Fla.1953, 65 So. 2d 67; Pecnik v. Blackburn, Fla.App. 1961, 132 So. 2d 604; Trice v. Blackburn, Fla.App.1963, 153 So. 2d 32; Buchanan v. State, Fla.App. 1966, 185 So. 2d 509. At a habeas corpus hearing growing out of a rendition proceeding, the Governor’s warrant, itself…
-
Pecnik v. Blackburn, 132 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)…ing to contest the validity and propriety of a rendition warrant issued by a governor, the burden rests with the accused to overcome, by competent proof, the prima facie case made by the extradition warrant. State ex rel. Kimbro v. Starr, Fla. 1953, 65 So. 2d 67. The facts in this case are readily distinguishable from the facts in the case of Hattaway v. Culbreath, Fla.1952, 57 So. 2d 661, in that, in that case the Supreme Court was dealing with an extradition warrant issued as a result of a charge of a cr…
Previewing 3 of 19 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Munsey v. Clough, 196 U.S. 364 (U.S. 1905)
- Chase v. The State of Fla. ex rel. H. L. Burch, 93 Fla. 963 (Fla. 1927)
- Cook v. Hart, 146 U.S. 183 (U.S. 1892)
- White v. Penton, 92 Fla. 837 (Fla. 1926)
- Clark G. Kuney v. State of Fla. & J. L. Hampton, 88 Fla. 354 (Fla. 1924)
- Bell v. Mulcahy, 327 U.S. 800 (U.S. 1946)
- Hardwick v. Ragen, 327 U.S. 800 (U.S. 1946)
- United States ex rel. Austin v. Williams (E.D. La. 1925)