22-2710.
Rights of accused person; application for writ of habeas corpus; notice.
No person arrested upon such warrant shall be delivered over to the agent whom the executive authority demanding him shall have appointed to receive him unless he shall first be taken forthwith before a judge of a court of record in this state, who shall inform him of the demand made for his surrender and of the crime with which he is charged, and that he has the right to demand and procure legal counsel; and if the prisoner or his counsel shall state that he or they desire to test the legality of his arrest, the judge of such court of record shall fix a reasonable time to be allowed him within which to apply for a writ of habeas corpus. When such writ is applied for, notice thereof, and of the time and place of hearing thereon, shall be given to the prosecuting attorney of the county in which the arrest is made and in which the accused is in custody, and it shall be the duty of the prosecuting attorney to notify said agent of the demanding state.
History:
L. 1970, ch. 129, § 22-2710; L. 1973, ch. 143, § 1; July 1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
12
cases, 1980–2020 · leading case:
State v. Smith, 652 P.2d 703 (Kan. 1982).
State v. Smith, 652 P.2d 703 (Kan. 1982).
· cites it 5× “” The State first contends that the trial court erred in holding a hearing on the issue of identity, since the defendant failed to file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus as provided in K.S.A. 22-2710. That statute is a part of the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, as…”
State Ex Rel. Stephan v. Smith, 747 P.2d 816 (Kan. 1987).
“(a) Legal representation, at state expense, shall be provided to all persons who are financially unable to obtain adequate representation without substantial hardship to themselves or their families in the following cases: “ (1) felony cases at the trial court level; “ (2)…”
State v. Patton, 176 P.3d 151 (Kan. 2008).
· cites it 3× “First, the court denied Patton’s motion to determine competency, finding that competency is not an extradition requirement. Next, the court concluded that the State met the requirements of K.”
State v. Andrews, 614 P.2d 447 (Kan. 1980).
“22-3428 or 59-2917 shall be entitled to the assistance of counsel at every stage of a habeas corpus proceeding brought by such person and the provisions of this section relating to defendants shall be applicable to such persons.”
Ortega v. City of Kansas City, Kansas, 659 F. Supp. 1201 (D. Kan. 1987).
“…is denied, the suspect is turned over to the Kansas authorities. If the writ is granted, the accused is released. K.S.A. 22-2710.”
State v. Pierce, 787 P.2d 1189 (Kan. 1990).
“22-4503(a) provides: “A defendant charged by the state of Kansas in a complaint, information or indictment with any felony is entitled to have the assistance of counsel at every stage of the proceedings against such defendant and a defendant in an extradition proceeding, or a…”
In Re Habeas Corpus Petition of Mason, 775 P.2d 179 (Kan. 1989).
“After arguments, and objections by the defense, the court ordered a mistrial because the defense had failed to file notice of an insanity defense pursuant to K.S.A. 22-3219.”
Breckenridge v. Hindman, 691 P.2d 405 (Kan. Ct. App. 1984).
“That day, he was brought before the district court, informed of the charges of the State of Oklahoma pursuant to K.S.A. 22-2710 and given ten days in which to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus.”
Kennon v. Hill, 44 F.3d 904 (10th Cir. 1995).
“Kan.Stat.Ann. § 22-2710. This statute requires that a person held pursuant to an extradition warrant shall have an immediate hearing in a state court where he shall be informed of the charges against him and of his right to counsel.”
In re Matter of Brewer, 444 P.3d 1014 (Kan. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 5× “But Brewer's petition rests on K.S.A. 22-2710 and the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act.”
In re Sanders, 704 P.2d 386 (Kan. Ct. App. 1985).
“If the person is arrested on a governor’s warrant, K.S.A. 22-2710 provides that he must be taken before a judge forthwith and advised of the charge leveled against him by the demanding state and his right to resist extradition with the aid of an attorney who will be appointed if…”
Solton (ID 120065) v. Soldan (D. Kan. 2020).
“It appears Petitioner filed an appeal testing the legality of his arrest in the Kansas Supreme Court pursuant to K.S.A. 22-2710, but that action remains pending.”
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.