Edwards v. Salt Lake County

Edwards v. Salt Lake County

IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

----ooOoo----

Randy Dervon Edwards,
Petitioner and Appellant,

v.

State of Utah, Salt Lake County, Salt Lake County Sheriff's Office,
Office of the District Attorney, and Aaron Kennard,
Respondents and Appellees.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)
 

Case No. 20010885-CA
 

F I L E D
(May 30, 2003)
 

2003 UT App 167

-----

Third District, Salt Lake Department

The Honorable Tyrone Medley

Attorneys: Robert L. Booker, Salt Lake City, for Appellant

Richard D. McKelvie and David E. Yocom, Salt Lake City, for Appellees

-----

Before Judges Bench, Davis, and Greenwood.

BENCH, Judge:

Petitioner attempts to raise a number of issues on appeal but fails to fully comply with the requirements of rule 24 of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Utah R. App. P. 24. Despite the deficiencies in Petitioner's brief, the trial court's denial of his habeas corpus petition challenging extradition is clearly sustainable on the merits.

"Interstate extradition [i]s intended to be a summary and mandatory executive proceeding derived from the language of . . . the Constitution." Michigan v. Doran, 439 U.S. 282, 288, 99 S. Ct. 530, 535 (1978). When "presented with authentic documents from a demanding state, the asylum state's governor must issue an extradition warrant." Boudreaux v. State, 1999 Utah App 310,¶9, 989 P.2d 1103; see also Utah Code Ann. § 77-30-2 (1999). "A governor's grant of extradition is prima facie evidence that the constitutional and statutory requirements have been met." Doran, 439 U.S. at 289, 99 S. Ct. at 535.

Once the governor has granted extradition, a court considering release on habeas corpus can do no more than 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.

Id. Governor Leavitt issued an arrest warrant granting extradition on June 27, 2001.

After reviewing the record, we conclude that each of the Doran elements are met in this case. The Governor of California certified that the extradition documents are authentic. Our supreme court has stated that a governor's certification "is sufficient compliance with the law as to the authentication." Birmingham v. Larson, 26 Utah 2d 414, 490 P.2d 893, 894 (1971). According to the certification, Petitioner is charged with "Conspiracy to Commit a Crime and Murder." There is no dispute as to Petitioner's identity as California has provided both a picture of Petitioner and a copy of his fingerprints. Finally, Petitioner is alleged to have been in California on the date of the crime and is sought to face trial in California's criminal justice system although he is currently within the jurisdiction of Utah. See Emig v. Hayward, 703 P.2d 1043, 1046 (Utah 1985) ("[I]f the person sought to be extradited was not in the demanding state on the date of the crime, or if he is not the person named in the extradition warrant, he cannot be a 'fugitive from justice[.]'"). Based on the record before us and on Petitioner's failure to show that he is not a fugitive from justice, we conclude that Petitioner is properly considered a fugitive.

Affirmed.

______________________________

Russell W. Bench, Judge

-----

WE CONCUR:

 

James Z. Davis, Judge

 

Pamela T. Greenwood, Judge