PEOPLE EX REL. BLAKE v. Pataki

New York Court of Appeals

PEOPLE EX REL. BLAKE v. Pataki

922 N.E.2d 869, 13 N.Y.3d 912, 895 N.Y.S.2d 283, 2010 NY Slip Op 193

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 12, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 922 N.E.2d 869 (PEOPLE EX REL. BLAKE v. Pataki) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

PEOPLE EX REL. BLAKE v. Pataki, 922 N.E.2d 869, 13 N.Y.3d 912, 895 N.Y.S.2d 283, 2010 NY Slip Op 193 (N.Y. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs. The certified question should not be answered upon the ground that it is unnecessary.

Once a governor of an asylum state has granted extradition, a court considering release on habeas corpus must decide “(a) whether the extradition documents on their face are in order; (b) whether the petitioner has been charged with a crime in the demanding state; (c) whether the petitioner is the person named in the request for extradition; and (d) whether the petitioner is a fugitive” (Michigan v Doran, 439 US 282, 289 [1978]). A fugitive is one who, “having committed a crime in a demanding State, is present in an asylum State when a demanding State seeks to prosecute the offense” (People ex rel. Strachan v Colon, 77 NY2d 499, 502-503 [1991]). Relator is a fugitive because he was convicted of a crime in South Carolina and escaped from incarceration. If, in 1993 or thereafter, South Carolina determined that it no longer sought to classify relator as a fugitive, it could have granted relator a pardon. Hence, relator’s equitable arguments are more appropriately posited to South Carolina.

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur in memorandum.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, etc.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs. The certified question should not be answered upon the ground that it is unnecessary.

Once a governor of an asylum state has granted extradition, a court considering release on habeas corpus must decide “(a) whether the extradition documents on their face are in order; (b) whether the petitioner has been charged with a crime in the demanding state; (c) whether the petitioner is the person named in the request for extradition; and (d) whether the petitioner is a fugitive” (Michigan v Doran, 439 US 282, 289 [1978]). A fugitive is one who, “having committed a crime in a demanding State, is present in an asylum State when a demanding State seeks to prosecute the offense” (People ex rel. Strachan v Colon, 77 NY2d 499, 502-503 [1991]). Relator is a fugitive because he was convicted of a crime in South Carolina and escaped from incarceration. If, in 1993 or thereafter, South Carolina determined that it no longer sought to classify relator as a fugitive, it could have granted relator a pardon. Hence, relator’s equitable arguments are more appropriately posited to South Carolina.

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur in memorandum.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

922 N.E.2d 869, 13 N.Y.3d 912, 895 N.Y.S.2d 283, 2010 NY Slip Op 193, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-blake-v-pataki-ny-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack