Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 2963
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 2963.01 (2026)

Extradition definitions

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Effective:
January 1, 2004
Latest Legislation:
House Bill 490 - 124th General Assembly
PDF:
Download Authenticated PDF
 

As used in sections 2963.01 to 2963.27 of the Revised Code:

(A) "Governor" includes any person performing the functions of governor by authority of the law of this state.

(B) "Executive authority" includes the governor, and any person performing the functions of governor in a state other than this state.

(C) "State," referring to a state other than this state, includes any state or territory, organized or unorganized, of the United States.

(D) "Community control sanction" has the same meaning as in section 2929.01 of the Revised Code.

(E) "Post-release control" and "post-release control sanction" have the same meanings as in section 2967.01 of the Revised Code.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1959–2023 · leading case: State v. Sands, 2016 Ohio 7150 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Sands, 2016 Ohio 7150 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). “The statutes he cites – R.C. 2963.01, R.C. 2963.05, and R.C. 2963.”
Reed v. State Ex Rel. Ortiz, 947 P.2d 86 (N.M. 1997). · cites it 2× “*98 58 Further requirements in the extradition process are found in the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act. 11 U.L.A. 97 (1995). Forty-eight states, including New Mexico and Ohio, have adopted the Uniform Act.”
State v. Hirsch, 717 N.E.2d 789 (Ohio Ct. App. 1998). “Hirsch further argues that the state violated R.C. 2963.01 et seq., Ohio’s codification of the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act.”
State v. Moss, 376 S.E.2d 569 (W. Va. 1988). “While the Detainer Agreement applies only to persons incarcerated, the Extradition Act applies to persons at liberty as well as to persons incarcerated.”
Bonds v. Dep't of Rehab. & Corr., 687 N.E.2d 300 (Ohio Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 2× “02, which provides: “Subject to sections 2963.01 to 2963.27, inclusive, of the Revised Code, the constitution of the United States and all acts of congress enacted in pursuance thereof, the governor shall have arrested and delivered to the executive authority of any other state…”
State v. Owens, 910 N.E.2d 1059 (Ohio Ct. App. 2009). “They could have sentenced him by video conference, commenced formal extradition proceedings pursuant to R.C. 2963.01, or requested a waiver from Owens of his right to be physically present at the sentencing hearing.”
State v. Brown, 786 N.E.2d 492 (Ohio Ct. App. 2003). “See R.C. 2963.01 et seq. {¶ 28} Last, appellee could have requested a waiver from appellant of his right to be physically present at the sentencing hearing.”
In re Complaint in Habeas Corpus of Rowe, 423 N.E.2d 167 (Ohio 1981). “02 as follows: “Subject to sections 2963.01 to 2963.27, inclusive, of the Revised Code, the constitution of the United States and all acts of congress enacted in pursuance thereof, the governor shall have arrested and delivered to the executive authority of any other state of…”
State, Ex Rel. Gilpin v. Stokes, 483 N.E.2d 179 (Ohio Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 2× “On December 15, 1983, the Ohio Governor issued his warrants pursuant to R.C. 2963.01 et seq. On February 28,1984, after evidentiary hearings, the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton County, Ohio, denied the application for extradition and granted petitioners’ writs of habeas…”
State v. Scahel, 2016 Ohio 18 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). “See R.C. 2963.01 et seq. (Ohio), RCW 10.88 et seq.”
State v. Pete, 2023 Ohio 4406 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023). “{¶27} The Owens Court recognized several methods the state and/or the trial court could have employed to sentence Owens, including video conference, formal extradition proceedings pursuant to R.C. 2963.01, or the execution of a waiver from Owens of his right to be physically…”
Hanson v. Smith, 587 N.E.2d 345 (Ohio Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 2× “Section 2963.01, et seq., the Ohio Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, sets forth the requirements for a demand of extradition to be recognized by the Governor of Ohio in R.”
Show all 15 citing cases →
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.