In this article, unless the context otherwise requires:
1. "Charged with crime", "criminal charge" or "criminal offense" includes any of the following:
(a) A felony or misdemeanor offense.
(b) Escape from confinement or the custody of any of the following:
(i) A law enforcement officer.
(ii) A custodial official.
(iii) A custodial agency.
(iv) A custodial institution.
(c) Being accused on a warrant of violating the terms of federal or state supervision.
(d) Being accused of violating bail or conditions of release.
(e) The conviction of a crime.
(f) Having an unserved remaining criminal sentence.
(g) Being subject to the death penalty on criminal conviction.
2. "Governor" includes any person performing the functions of governor by authority of the law of this state.
3. "Executive authority" includes the governor, and any person performing the functions of governor in a state other than this state.
4. "State," when referring to a state other than this state, means any other state or territory, organized or unorganized, of the United States.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
5
cases, 1986–2014 · leading case:
Johnson v. O'Connor, 327 P.3d 218 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
Johnson v. O'Connor, 327 P.3d 218 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 2× “Under the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, codified in AR.S. §§ 13-3841 to - 3870.02, when a state submits the proper documentation for the extradition of a criminal suspect who resides in Arizona, the documentation “becomes prima facie evidence that the constitutional and…”
State v. Reasoner, 742 P.2d 1363 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 2× “This may be correct as far as the procedures for extraditing appellant to Colorado are concerned, but that is not the question before us.”
State v. McDonald, 825 P.2d 238 (N.M. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 2× “Defendant cites no authority for the proposition that actual notice rather than an arrest is sufficient to serve an arrest warrant, nor has our research disclosed any such authority. Defendant next argues that the state could and should have extradited defendant once it was…”
Weilburg v. Shapiro, 488 F.3d 1202 (9th Cir. 2007).
“” Rather, they argued that the “gist of the plaintiffs’ complaint hinges *1205 on violations of procedural due process protected by the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act,” Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 13-3841 et seq., and the federal extradition procedures statute, 18 U.”
Golden v. Dupnik, 726 P.2d 1096 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 2× “See A.R.S. § 13-3841, et seq and TCA §§ 40-9-101 through 40-9-130.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.