Powers of court on habeas corpus once extradition ordered.

- Once the Governor has granted extradition, a court considering release on habeas corpus can do no more than decide whether the extradition documents on the documents' face are in order; whether the petitioner has been charged with a crime in the demanding state; whether the petitioner is the person named in the request for extradition; and whether the petitioner is a fugitive. Hutson v. Stoner, 244 Ga. 52, 257 S.E.2d 539, cert. denied, 444 U.S. 967, 100 S. Ct. 455, 62 L. Ed. 2d 379 (1979).

Proceeding is summary and defenses should be raised in demanding state.

- Once a habeas corpus court has found the extradition papers to be legally sufficient, a further inquiry into a petitioner's statutory and constitutional defenses violates the clear intention that an extradition proceeding be of a summary nature. Defenses that the statute of limitations has run on the offense for which the petitioner is being extradited, that the petitioner has been denied a speedy trial, and all other due process questions are issues to be properly decided by courts in the demanding state, not by courts in any asylum state. Hutson v. Stoner, 244 Ga. 52, 257 S.E.2d 539, cert. denied, 444 U.S. 967, 100 S. Ct. 455, 62 L. Ed. 2d 379 (1979).

Absence for demanding state at time crime committed.

- Absence from the demanding state at the time of the commission of an alleged crime is no longer a defense which is cognizable in an extradition proceeding. Hutson v. Stoner, 244 Ga. 52, 257 S.E.2d 539, cert. denied, 444 U.S. 967, 100 S. Ct. 455, 62 L. Ed. 2d 379 (1979).

Guilt or innocence not proper subject for inquiry on habeas corpus.

- Evidence offered by the plaintiff in a habeas corpus case to the effect that no crime was committed in the demanding state involves guilt or innocence, and if there is no issue of identity in the case, it being admitted in the application that the plaintiff is the person named in the papers, there is no reason for the trial judge to hear evidence of this nature. DeBusschere v. Rutledge, 229 Ga. 128, 189 S.E.2d 397 (1972).

Question of the guilt or innocence of an alleged fugitive from justice is not a proper subject matter of inquiry in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the alleged fugitive resists extradition. Straub v. Sanders, 231 Ga. 674, 203 S.E.2d 862 (1974).

Cited in McFarlin v. Shirley, 209 Ga. 794, 76 S.E.2d 1 (1953); Smithwick v. Olson, 229 Ga. 494, 192 S.E.2d 337 (1972); Waterman v. Deyton, 233 Ga. 243, 210 S.E.2d 765 (1974); Smith v. Hart, 243 Ga. 59, 252 S.E.2d 470 (1979).

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 31A Am. Jur. 2d, Extradition, §§ 95, 121 et seq.

C.J.S.

- 35 C.J.S. (Rev), Extradition and Detainers, § 40.

U.L.A.

- Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (U.L.A.) § 20.

ALR.

- Right to prove absence from demanding state or alibi on habeas corpus in extradition proceedings, 61 A.L.R. 715.

Determination in extradition proceedings, or on habeas corpus in such proceedings, whether a crime is charged, 81 A.L.R. 552; 40 A.L.R.2d 1151; 40 A.L.R.2d 1151.