Lyman v. Howard

Supreme Court of Georgia

Lyman v. Howard

297 S.E.2d 21, 250 Ga. 185, 1982 Ga. LEXIS 1234

Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided November 12, 1982·No. 39187·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per curiam.

The transcript indicates that (1) the extradition documents on their face were in order, (2) the petitioner was charged with a crime in Florida, the demanding state, and (3) the petitioner is the person named in the demand for extradition. It neither is necessary that the petitioner be shown to have been in the demanding state at the time of the commission of the crime, nor that he had fled therefrom. Anderson v. State, 243 Ga. 216 (253 SE2d 166) (1979).

The requirements for extradition set forth in Michigan v. Doran, 439 U. S. 282 (99 SC 530, 58 LE2d 521) (1978), having been met, we affirm the judgment of the habeas court.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Marshall, P. J., who is disqualified.

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

Per curiam.

The transcript indicates that (1) the extradition documents on their face were in order, (2) the petitioner was charged with a crime in Florida, the demanding state, and (3) the petitioner is the person named in the demand for extradition. It neither is necessary that the petitioner be shown to have been in the demanding state at the time of the commission of the crime, nor that he had fled therefrom. Anderson v. State, 243 Ga. 216 (253 SE2d 166) (1979).

The requirements for extradition set forth in Michigan v. Doran, 439 U. S. 282 (99 SC 530, 58 LE2d 521) (1978), having been met, we affirm the judgment of the habeas court.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Marshall, P. J., who is disqualified.

Lyman v. Howard, 297 S.E.2d 21, 250 Ga. 185, 1982 Ga. LEXIS 1234 (Ga. 1982).

Pincite

297 S.E.2d 21 (Lyman v. Howard) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related