Whaley v. State

Supreme Court of Georgia

Whaley v. State

328 S.E.2d 720, 254 Ga. 275, 1985 Ga. LEXIS 677

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedApril 23, 1985

Docket42167

StatusPublished

This text of 328 S.E.2d 720 (Whaley v. State) 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

Whaley v. State, 328 S.E.2d 720, 254 Ga. 275, 1985 Ga. LEXIS 677 (Ga. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

Marshall, Presiding Justice.

The transcript indicates that (1) the extradition documents on their face were in order, (2) the petitioner was charged with a crime in Texas, the demanding state, and (3) the petitioner is the person named in the demand for extradition. It is necessary neither 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. Lyman v. Howard, 250 Ga. 185 (297 SE2d 21) (1982) and cit.

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 corpus court. A petitioner is not entitled to two separate trials in two separate states. The appellant’s defenses, that a civil remedy was being sought to be enforced and that the indictment was defective upon its face, are issues to be properly decided by courts in the demanding state, not by courts in an asylum state. Hutson v. Stoner, 244 Ga. 52, 53 (257 SE2d 539) (1979).

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Marshall, Presiding Justice.

The transcript indicates that (1) the extradition documents on their face were in order, (2) the petitioner was charged with a crime in Texas, the demanding state, and (3) the petitioner is the person named in the demand for extradition. It is necessary neither 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. Lyman v. Howard, 250 Ga. 185 (297 SE2d 21) (1982) and cit.

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 corpus court. A petitioner is not entitled to two separate trials in two separate states. The appellant’s defenses, that a civil remedy was being sought to be enforced and that the indictment was defective upon its face, are issues to be properly decided by courts in the demanding state, not by courts in an asylum state. Hutson v. Stoner, 244 Ga. 52, 53 (257 SE2d 539) (1979).

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

328 S.E.2d 720, 254 Ga. 275, 1985 Ga. LEXIS 677, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/whaley-v-state-ga-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack