Shufty v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Shufty v. State

419 So. 2d 1171, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 21265

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 1, 1982

DocketNo. 81-1678

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 419 So. 2d 1171 (Shufty v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Shufty v. State, 419 So. 2d 1171, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 21265 (Fla. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Counsel for appellant submitted the instant appeal pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). We have carefully reviewed the entire record on appeal and have concluded that no reversible error exists.

Concerning appellant’s extradition process, pursuant to section 941.03, Florida Statutes (1981), a copy of a warrant supported by an affidavit made before a committing magistrate of the demanding state shall be recognized in lieu of an authenticated copy of an indictment or information. State ex rel. Owens v. Boyer, 207 So.2d 29 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968). Furthermore, since the provisions of the statute were correctly followed here, we hold that the denial of appellant’s petition for writ of habeas corpus was proper.

Affirmed.

OTT, C. J., and RYDER and CAMPBELL, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Counsel for appellant submitted the instant appeal pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). We have carefully reviewed the entire record on appeal and have concluded that no reversible error exists.

Concerning appellant’s extradition process, pursuant to section 941.03, Florida Statutes (1981), a copy of a warrant supported by an affidavit made before a committing magistrate of the demanding state shall be recognized in lieu of an authenticated copy of an indictment or information. State ex rel. Owens v. Boyer, 207 So.2d 29 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968). Furthermore, since the provisions of the statute were correctly followed here, we hold that the denial of appellant’s petition for writ of habeas corpus was proper.

Affirmed.

OTT, C. J., and RYDER and CAMPBELL, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

419 So. 2d 1171, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 21265, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shufty-v-state-fladistctapp-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack