Unpublished Disposition, 883 F.2d 1025 (9th Cir. 1989)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 883 F.2d 1025 (9th Cir. 1989)

Waldo E. WALDRON-RAMSEY, Petitioner-Appellant,v.Donald R. MANNING, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 88-3939.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 9, 1989.Decided Aug. 11, 1989.

Before ALDISERT,**  EUGENE A. WRIGHT and BEEZER, Circuit Judges.


MEMORANDUM**

Waldron-Ramsey claims that his extradition to Washington violated due process of law and that the district court erred by denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We affirm the dismissal.

The New York police arrested Waldron-Ramsey pursuant to a Spokane County warrant charging first degree murder. He filed a habeas corpus petition in New York challenging his incarceration and extradition. The New York Supreme Court conducted a hearing. It denied the writ and granted a two week stay for appeal. Before the appeal could be effected, the authorities transported Waldron-Ramsey to Washington.

He filed a habeas corpus petition in the District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, alleging that his extradition violated due process. He appeals that court's denial of his petition.

He was convicted on May 5, 1989 by the state court of first degree murder and was sentenced on June 20, 1989 to 575 months in confinement.

He asserts that by denying him a full evidentiary hearing prior to extradition, New York violated his due process rights. This argument has no merit.

Even assuming Waldron-Ramsey's extradition was irregular for lack of an adequate hearing, the state court still had the power to try him. See Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 119 (1975); Frisbie v. Collins, 342 U.S. 519, 522 (1952); Ker v. Illinois, 119 U.S. 436, 444 (1886); Cody v. Morris, 623 F.2d 101, 103 (9th Cir. 1980); Myers v. Rhay, 577 F.2d 504, 507 (9th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 968 (1978). The subsequent conviction cannot be voided by an illegal arrest or detention. See Gerstein, 420 U.S. at 119.

AFFIRMED.

 *

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); Ninth Circuit Rule 34-4

 **

Judge Ruggero J. Aldisert, United States Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit

 ***

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3