(a) A demand for the extradition of a person charged with crime in another state shall
not be recognized by the Governor unless in writing alleging, except in cases arising
under section 4946 of this title, that the accused was present in the demanding state at the time of the commission
of the alleged crime, and that thereafter he or she fled from the state, and accompanied
by a copy of an indictment found or by an information supported by affidavit in the
state having jurisdiction of the crime, or by a copy of an affidavit made before a
magistrate therein, together with a copy of any warrant that was issued thereon or
by a copy of a judgment of conviction or of a sentence imposed in execution thereof,
together with a statement by the executive authority of the demanding state that the
person claimed has escaped from confinement or has broken the terms of his or her
bail, probation, or parole. The indictment, information, or affidavit made before
the magistrate must substantially charge the person demanded with having committed
a crime under the law of that state; and the copy of the indictment, information,
affidavit, judgment of conviction, or sentence must be authenticated by the executive
authority making the demand.
(b) A warrant of extradition shall not be issued unless the documents presented by the
executive authority making the demand show that:
(1) Except in cases arising under section 4946 of this title, the accused was present in the demanding state at the time of the commission of
the alleged crime, and thereafter fled from that state;
(2) The accused is now in this State; and
(3) He or she is lawfully charged by indictment found or by information filed by a prosecuting
officer and supported by affidavit to the facts, or by affidavit made before a magistrate
in that state, with having committed a crime under the laws of that state or that
he or she has been convicted of a crime in that state and has escaped from confinement
or broken the terms of his or her bail, probation, or parole.
In Re Graziani, 591 A.2d 91 (Vt. 1991). · cites it 2דUnder 13 V.S.A. § 4943(a), an extradition demand for a person who is charged with a crime in the demanding state must be accompanied by a copy of one of the following documents: (1) an indictment; (2) an information supported by affidavit; or (3) an affidavit made before a…”
In re Ladd, 596 A.2d 1313 (Vt. 1991). · cites it 2דUnder § 4943(a), the extradition demand must include “a copy of a judgment of conviction or of a sentence imposed in execution thereof, together with a statement by the executive authority of the demanding state that the person claimed has .”
In Re Moskaluk, 591 A.2d 95 (Vt. 1991). “His claim is based in large part on 13 V.S.A. § 4943(b), which requires the documents presented by the state seeking extradition to “show” that the person who is sought has been convicted in that state and has “broken the terms of his .”
In re Lambert, 795 A.2d 1236 (Vt. 2002). · cites it 2דOne week later, on December 7, petitioner filed a petition for habeas corpus, claiming that the Massachusetts documents supporting the extradition request were deficient under 13 V.S.A. § 4943, and further asserting that her continued incarceration violated due process.”
In re Sousie, 516 A.2d 142 (Vt. 1986). · cites it 3דThis is an appeal from the denial of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus which alleged that a demand for extradition by the State of Massachusetts did not comply with the requirements of 13 V.S.A. § 4943. We reverse. 13 V.S.A. § 4943 requires that a demand for extradition be…”
In Re Everett, 427 A.2d 349 (Vt. 1981). “Our statute, 13 V.S.A. § 4943, provides for essentially the same material upon demand, except that the probable cause element is satisfied by an affidavit that complies with the statute.”
In re LaPlante, 2014 VT 79 (Vt. 2014). “13 V.S.A. § 4943(a). Section 4943 further directs that where, as here, the warrant request is made after a defendant’s conviction, the requesting state must show that the defendant “has escaped from confinement or broken the terms of his or her bail, probation or parole.”
Deyo v. Snelling, 428 A.2d 1117 (Vt. 1981). “13 V.S.A. § 4943(a). Arizona provided no affidavit to the facts of the crime by the prosecuting officer or affidavits executed before a magistrate.”
In re Hval, 539 A.2d 537 (Vt. 1987). · cites it 2דnt Governor’s warrant is not supported by proper documentation, clarifying at oral argument that since he departed from Rhode Island on a date before his violation of probation was established, he did not commit his probation violation while in Rhode Island and therefore was not…”
In re Ropp, 541 A.2d 86 (Vt. 1988). “Nothing we conclude relates in the least to petitioner’s status as an accused felon under Wisconsin law.”
Russell v. Smith, 245 A.2d 563 (Vt. 1968). “Petitioner contends in his brief that the requirements of the United States Constitution and of Vermont law (13 V.S.A. §4943) have *228 not been met in the extradition papers and renditions warrant sent to the Governor of Vermont by the Governor of North Carolina.”
James D. Perron v. Lisa Menard, Comm'r, 171 A.3d 399 (Vt. 2017). · cites it 3דWe note at the outset that, though petitioner falls under 13 V.S.A. § 4943(b)(3)'s second clause because New York has convicted petitioner of a crime, he also falls under the statute's first clause.”
In Re Graziani, 591 A.2d 91 (Vt. 1991). “Under 13 V.S.A. § 4943(a), an extradition demand for a person who is charged with a crime in the demanding state must be accompanied by a copy of one of the following documents: (1) an indictment; (2) an information supported by affidavit; or (3) an affidavit made before a…”
In re LaPlante, 2014 VT 79 (Vt. 2014). “13 V.S.A. § 4943(a). Section 4943 further directs that where, as here, the warrant request is made after a defendant’s conviction, the requesting state must show that the defendant “has escaped from confinement or broken the terms of his or her bail, probation or parole.”
Deyo v. Snelling, 428 A.2d 1117 (Vt. 1981). “13 V.S.A. § 4943(a). Arizona provided no affidavit to the facts of the crime by the prosecuting officer or affidavits executed before a magistrate.”
In re Lambert, 795 A.2d 1236 (Vt. 2002). “One week later, on December 7, petitioner filed a petition for habeas corpus, claiming that the Massachusetts documents supporting the extradition request were deficient under 13 V.S.A. § 4943, and further asserting that her continued incarceration violated due process.”
In re Hval, 539 A.2d 537 (Vt. 1987). “nt Governor’s warrant is not supported by proper documentation, clarifying at oral argument that since he departed from Rhode Island on a date before his violation of probation was established, he did not commit his probation violation while in Rhode Island and therefore was not…”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 13, § 4943(b) — 3 cases
In Re Moskaluk, 591 A.2d 95 (Vt. 1991). “His claim is based in large part on 13 V.S.A. § 4943(b), which requires the documents presented by the state seeking extradition to “show” that the person who is sought has been convicted in that state and has “broken the terms of his .”
In re Hval, 539 A.2d 537 (Vt. 1987). “nt Governor’s warrant is not supported by proper documentation, clarifying at oral argument that since he departed from Rhode Island on a date before his violation of probation was established, he did not commit his probation violation while in Rhode Island and therefore was not…”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 13, § 4943(b)(3) — 1 case
James D. Perron v. Lisa Menard, Comm'r, 171 A.3d 399 (Vt. 2017). “We note at the outset that, though petitioner falls under 13 V.S.A. § 4943(b)(3)'s second clause because New York has convicted petitioner of a crime, he also falls under the statute's first clause.”
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.