O.C.G.A. § 17-13-5 (2019)

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS In habeas corpus case, burden is on petitioner to show why extradition warrant should not be executed. - When, in the trial of a habeas corpus case, it appears that the respondent is holding the petitioner in custody under an executive warrant based upon an extradition proceeding, and the warrant is regular on the warrant’s face, the burden is cast upon the petitioner to show some valid and

sufficient reason why the warrant should not be executed since there is a presumption that the Governor complied with the Constitution and law, and this presumption continues until the contrary appears. Baldwin v. Grimes, 216 Ga. 390, 116 S.E.2d 207 (1960). Cited in Scheinfain v. Aldredge, 191 Ga. 479, 12 S.E.2d 868 (1940); Hart v. Mount, 196 Ga. 452, 26 S.E.2d 453 (1943).

ARTICLE 2 UNIFORM CRIMINAL EXTRADITION ACT

Law reviews. - For comment on Watson v. Grimes, 218 Ga. 631, 129 S.E.2d 795 (1963), see 26 Ga. B.J. 92 (1963). JUDICIAL DECISIONS O.C.G.A. T. 17, C. 13, A. 1 is an enactment of the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act. Fain v. Thurman, 247 Ga. 569, 277 S.E.2d 503 (1981). Construction with Interstate Detainer Agreement. - Prisoner incarcerated in a jurisdiction that has adopted the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act is entitled to the procedural protections of that act particularly the right to a pretransfer hearing before being transferred to another jurisdiction, pursuant to Art. IV of the Detainer Agreement. Lambert v. Jones, 250 Ga. 603, 299 S.E.2d 716 (1983). Constitutionality of extradition procedures. - Interstate extradition is intended to be a summary proceeding. Therefore, its summary nature does not offend any constitutional guarantees to which the fugitive is entitled. McCullough v. Stynchcombe, 243 Ga. 24, 252 S.E.2d 453 (1979). O.C.G.A. T. 17, C. 13, A. 1 is not unconstitutional on the grounds that the statute does not provide for notice, hearing, and adjudication of the issues of identity of the accused as the offender, whether the accused was sufficiently charged in the demanding state, and whether the accused is a fugitive from justice as to the demanding state prior to the accused’s delivery up and removal from this state to the demanding state. Fain v. Thurman, 247 Ga. 569, 277 S.E.2d 503 (1981).

Double jeopardy. - No double jeopardy can arise out of a decision in an extradition proceeding. Broughton v. Griffin, 244 Ga. 365, 260 S.E.2d 75 (1979). Summary nature of extradition procedures. - Once a habeas corpus court has found extradition papers to be legally sufficient, any further consideration of the petitioner’s defenses, including any defense based on an enforceable judgment, violates the clear intention of the legislature in enacting the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, O.C.G.A. § 17-13-20 et seq., that an extradition proceeding be of a summary nature. Prince v. Mitchell, 257 Ga. 30, 354 S.E.2d 422 (1987). Issue to be properly decided by demanding state. - While a mother’s right to custody awarded by a Georgia court under former § 19-9-40 et seq. may certainly be raised as a defense to Tennessee charges of kidnapping the child and may even be dispositive of the issue of whether the mother and grandmother took the child unlawfully, that issue nonetheless was to be properly decided in Tennessee, the court of the demanding state, not by a court in the asylum state, Georgia. Prince v. Mitchell, 257 Ga. 30, 354 S.E.2d 422 (1987). Cited in Harmon v. State, 222 Ga. 845, 152 S.E.2d 861 (1967); Stynchcombe v. Boulware, 240 Ga. 295, 240 S.E.2d 86 (1977).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Arrest of fugitives in this state generally. - Unless the fugitive from a foreign state commits some criminal act in this state, a Georgia court will not issue a warrant for the fugitive’s arrest except pursuant to this article, in which case the

sheriff is then required, under extradition procedures, to deliver the fugitive before the proper Georgia court where the fugitive has the right to contest the fugitive’s extradition by writ of habeas corpus. 1972 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 72-24.

Penalty for delivery of fugitive to foreign bondsman rather than proper court. - If the sheriff fails to deliver the fugitive before the proper court, and instead delivers the fugitive up to the foreign bondsman, the fugitive will be subject to criminal prosecution. 1972 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 72-24. Pick up and return of parolees. - Parolees under supervision in this state

pursuant to the former Uniform Act for Out-of-State Parolee Supervision could be picked up and returned to the sending state upon compliance with the requirements of the Act and without necessity of extradition proceedings. 1965-66 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 66-39.

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. - 31A Am. Jur. 2d, Extradition, §§ 10, 11, 57 et seq. ALR. - One charged with desertion or failure to support wife or child as fugitive from justice, subject to extradition, 32 A.L.R. 1167; 54 A.L.R. 281. Extradition of fugitive in custody under charge in asylum state, 42 A.L.R. 585. Action for malicious prosecution or false arrest based on extradition proceeding, 55 A.L.R. 353. Bar of limitations as proper subject of investigation in extradition proceedings or in habeas corpus proceedings for release of one sought to be extradited, 77 A.L.R. 902. Extradition of escaped or paroled convict, or one at liberty on bail, 78 A.L.R. 419. 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. One removed from demanding state or country as a fugitive from justice within contemplation of extradition laws, 85 A.L.R. 118.

One not in demanding state at time of offense, but who afterward entered and left state, as fugitive from justice within extradition law, 91 A.L.R. 1262. Sanity or insanity or pendency of lunacy proceedings as matters for consideration in extradition proceedings, 114 A.L.R. 693. Surrender of convict to authorities of other jurisdiction as precluding punishment or further punishment under original conviction, 147 A.L.R. 941. Constitutionality, construction, and application of federal Fugitive Felon Act, 154 A.L.R. 1168. Discharge on habeas corpus of one held in extradition proceedings as precluding subsequent extradition proceedings, 33 A.L.R.3d 1443. Extradition of juveniles, 73 A.L.R.3d 700. Validity, construction, and application of interstate agreement on detainers, 98 A.L.R.3d 160. Right to try one brought within jurisdiction illegally or as a result of a mistake as to identity, 28 A.L.R. Fed. 685; 25 A.L.R.4th 157.