Fain v. Thurman

Supreme Court of Georgia

Fain v. Thurman

277 S.E.2d 503, 247 Ga. 569, 1981 Ga. LEXIS 799

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedApril 30, 1981

Docket37381

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 277 S.E.2d 503 (Fain v. Thurman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fain v. Thurman, 277 S.E.2d 503, 247 Ga. 569, 1981 Ga. LEXIS 799 (Ga. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

Marshall, Justice.

The trial court denied the appellant’s petition for habeas corpus in an extradition proceeding.

[570]*570Decided April 30, 1981 Rehearing denied May 13, 1981. Ben Lancaster, for appellant. Darrell E. Wilson, District Attorney, for appellee.

We have carefully examined the record and find that the extradition documents are in order, the appellant is charged with a crime in the demanding state, the appellant is the person named in the request for extradition, and the appellant is a fugitive from justice in the demanding state. Michigan v. Doran, 439 U. S. 282 (99 SC 530, 58 LE2d 521) (1978).

Code Ann. Ch. 44-4 (Ga. L. 1951, p. 726 et seq.) is not unconstitutional on the grounds contended by the appellant, i.e., that it does not provide for notice, hearing and adjudication of the issues of the identity of the accused as the offender, whether he was sufficiently charged in the demanding state, and whether he is a fugitive from justice as to the demanding state prior to his delivery up and removal from the State of Georgia to the demanding state. The Georgia statute is an enactment of the “Uniform Criminal Extradition Act” (Code Ann. § 44-401), which has been upheld by Michigan v. Doran, supra, the requirements of which we have held to have been complied with in this case.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Marshall, Justice.

The trial court denied the appellant’s petition for habeas corpus in an extradition proceeding.

[570]*570Decided April 30, 1981 Rehearing denied May 13, 1981. Ben Lancaster, for appellant. Darrell E. Wilson, District Attorney, for appellee.

We have carefully examined the record and find that the extradition documents are in order, the appellant is charged with a crime in the demanding state, the appellant is the person named in the request for extradition, and the appellant is a fugitive from justice in the demanding state. Michigan v. Doran, 439 U. S. 282 (99 SC 530, 58 LE2d 521) (1978).

Code Ann. Ch. 44-4 (Ga. L. 1951, p. 726 et seq.) is not unconstitutional on the grounds contended by the appellant, i.e., that it does not provide for notice, hearing and adjudication of the issues of the identity of the accused as the offender, whether he was sufficiently charged in the demanding state, and whether he is a fugitive from justice as to the demanding state prior to his delivery up and removal from the State of Georgia to the demanding state. The Georgia statute is an enactment of the “Uniform Criminal Extradition Act” (Code Ann. § 44-401), which has been upheld by Michigan v. Doran, supra, the requirements of which we have held to have been complied with in this case.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

277 S.E.2d 503, 247 Ga. 569, 1981 Ga. LEXIS 799, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fain-v-thurman-ga-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack