UNIFORM CRIMINAL EXTRADITION ACT
Act 144 of 1937
780.9 Rights of accused persons; writ of habeas corpus, application.
Sec. 9.
Rights of accused person; application for writ of habeas corpus. 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 officer of the county in which the arrest is made and in which the accused is in custody, and to the said agent of the demanding state.
History: 1937, Act 144, Eff. Oct. 29, 1937 ;-- CL 1948, 780.9
Notes of Decisions
People v. Braziel, 169 N.W.2d 513 (Mich. Ct. App. 1969).
· cites it 2× “We are of the opinion that defendant, if indigent, is entitled to the appointment of assigned counsel, and that this result is required by § 10 of the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (MCLA § 780.”
People v. Donaldson, 302 N.W.2d 592 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981).
“14 MCL 780.9; MSA 28.1285(9), Rutledge v Ingham County Sheriff, 21 Mich App 726 ; 176 NW2d 417 (1970), cert den 401 US 915 ; 91 S Ct 891 ; 27 L Ed 2d 814 (1971).”
Williams v. North Carolina, 189 N.W.2d 858 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971).
· cites it 4× “[2] The statute, MCLA § 780.9 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.1285[9]), provides as follows: "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…”
People v. Duck, 383 N.W.2d 245 (Mich. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 2× “The enforcement mechanism for the right to a pretransfer hearing is found in the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, § 11, MCL 780.”
Eroh v. Manistee Cnty. Sheriff, 272 N.W.2d 720 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978).
“The plaintiff brought a habeas corpus proceeding in the Manistee County Circuit Court pursuant to MCL 780.9; MSA 28.1285(9). It must be noted that the plaintiff did not challenge the sufficiency of the extradition documents nor did he claim that the demanding state did not…”
People v. Wendt, 309 N.W.2d 230 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981).
“The cases relied upon by defendant 8 are all based on a lack of either statutory or case law allowing the people to appeal an adverse habeas *276 corpus ruling.”
Goldman v. Dep't of Corr. (E.D. Mich. 2019).
“) Petitioner demonstrates his awareness of his entitlement to a pre- transfer hearing pursuant to Michigan Compiled Law § 780.9. (See id.) However, nowhere does he allege that he requested such a hearing, that his request was denied, that he appealed the denial to the state…”
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.