Eugene Howard Woods v. Alwynn J. Cronvich, Sheriff

Fifth Circuit

Eugene Howard Woods v. Alwynn J. Cronvich, Sheriff

396 F.2d 142, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 6716

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMay 30, 1968

Docket25243

StatusPublished

Cited by23 cases

This text of 396 F.2d 142 (Eugene Howard Woods v. Alwynn J. Cronvich, Sheriff) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Eugene Howard Woods v. Alwynn J. Cronvich, Sheriff, 396 F.2d 142, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 6716 (5th Cir. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Appellant sought by habeas corpus to be discharged from the custody of Louisiana authorities who arrested him pursuant to an extradition request by the Governor of Ohio. He contends the indictment charging him with a crime in Ohio is invalid because based on evidence seized in violation of the fourth amendment. The district court denied appellant’s petition on the ground that habeas corpus in the asylum state is not the appropriate method of raising constitutional questions involved in an alleged offense. We agree.

The scheme of interstate rendition of prisoners established by the Constitution 1 and by implementing statutes 2 “contemplates the prompt return of a fugitive from justice as soon as the state from which he fled demands him.” Sweeney v. Woodall, 344 U.S. 86, 90, 73 S.Ct. 139, 141, 97 L.Ed. 114, 118 (1953). It is fundamental to our federal system that neither the courts of the asylum state, nor federal courts sitting in that state, seek to determine the constitutionality of prosecution in the state from which a fugitive has fled. It is for the courts of the charging state in the first instance to adjudicate the merits of appellant’s claim. Should the appellant be denied relief in the courts of Ohio, he is entitled to raise his constitutional question in the federal courts of Ohio.

The courts of the asylum state are limited to deciding whether (1) a crime has been charged in the demanding state; (2) the fugitive in custody is the person so charged; and (3) the fugitive was in the demanding state at the time the alleged crime was committed. United States ex rel. Tucker v. Donovan, 321 F.2d 114 (2d Cir. 1963) cert. denied sub nom. Tucker v. Kross, 375 U.S. 977, 84 S.Ct. 496, 11 L.Ed.2d 421 (1964); Brown v. Ward, 107 U.S.App.D.C. 220, 275 F.2d 884 (1960); Johnson v. Matthews, 86 U.S.App.D.C. 376, 182 F.2d 677 (1950), cert. denied, 340 U.S. 828, 71 S.Ct. 65, 95 L.Ed. 608 (1950). Inquiry into the constitutionality of the Ohio indictment not only would usurp the power and responsibility of the courts of Ohio, but would frustrate the purpose of the extradition procedures as well. See Hale v. Crawford, 65 F.2d 739 (1st Cir.), cert denied, 290 U.S. 674, 54 S.Ct. 92, 78 L.Ed. 581 (1933).

Accordingly, the judgment of .the district court denying appellant’s petition for habeas corpus is

Affirmed.

1

. U.S.Const. Art. 4, § 2.

2

. 18 U.S.C.A, § 3182.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Appellant sought by habeas corpus to be discharged from the custody of Louisiana authorities who arrested him pursuant to an extradition request by the Governor of Ohio. He contends the indictment charging him with a crime in Ohio is invalid because based on evidence seized in violation of the fourth amendment. The district court denied appellant’s petition on the ground that habeas corpus in the asylum state is not the appropriate method of raising constitutional questions involved in an alleged offense. We agree.

The scheme of interstate rendition of prisoners established by the Constitution 1 and by implementing statutes 2 “contemplates the prompt return of a fugitive from justice as soon as the state from which he fled demands him.” Sweeney v. Woodall, 344 U.S. 86, 90, 73 S.Ct. 139, 141, 97 L.Ed. 114, 118 (1953). It is fundamental to our federal system that neither the courts of the asylum state, nor federal courts sitting in that state, seek to determine the constitutionality of prosecution in the state from which a fugitive has fled. It is for the courts of the charging state in the first instance to adjudicate the merits of appellant’s claim. Should the appellant be denied relief in the courts of Ohio, he is entitled to raise his constitutional question in the federal courts of Ohio.

The courts of the asylum state are limited to deciding whether (1) a crime has been charged in the demanding state; (2) the fugitive in custody is the person so charged; and (3) the fugitive was in the demanding state at the time the alleged crime was committed. United States ex rel. Tucker v. Donovan, 321 F.2d 114 (2d Cir. 1963) cert. denied sub nom. Tucker v. Kross, 375 U.S. 977, 84 S.Ct. 496, 11 L.Ed.2d 421 (1964); Brown v. Ward, 107 U.S.App.D.C. 220, 275 F.2d 884 (1960); Johnson v. Matthews, 86 U.S.App.D.C. 376, 182 F.2d 677 (1950), cert. denied, 340 U.S. 828, 71 S.Ct. 65, 95 L.Ed. 608 (1950). Inquiry into the constitutionality of the Ohio indictment not only would usurp the power and responsibility of the courts of Ohio, but would frustrate the purpose of the extradition procedures as well. See Hale v. Crawford, 65 F.2d 739 (1st Cir.), cert denied, 290 U.S. 674, 54 S.Ct. 92, 78 L.Ed. 581 (1933).

Accordingly, the judgment of .the district court denying appellant’s petition for habeas corpus is

Affirmed.

1

. U.S.Const. Art. 4, § 2.

2

. 18 U.S.C.A, § 3182.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

396 F.2d 142, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 6716, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eugene-howard-woods-v-alwynn-j-cronvich-sheriff-ca5-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack