22-2703. Form of demand. No demand for the extradition of a person charged with crime in another state shall be recognized by the governor unless in writing, alleging, except in cases arising under K.S.A. 22-2706, and amendments thereto, that the accused was present in the demanding state at the time of the commission of the alleged crime and that thereafter the accused fled from the state, and accompanied by a copy of an indictment found or by information supported by affidavit in the state having jurisdiction of the crime, or by a copy of an affidavit made before a magistrate there, together with a copy of any warrant which was issued thereupon; or by a copy of a judgment of conviction or of a sentence imposed in execution thereof, together with a statement by the executive authority of the demanding state that the person claimed has escaped from confinement or has broken the terms of the person's bail, probation, assignment to a community correctional services program, parole or postrelease supervision, or that the sentence or some portion of it remains unexecuted and that the person claimed has not been paroled, released on postreleased supervision or discharged or otherwise released therefrom. The indictment, information affidavit or affidavit made before the magistrate must substantially charge the person demanded with having committed a crime under the law of that state; and the copy of indictment, information, affidavit, judgment of conviction or sentence must be authenticated by the executive authority making the demand.
History: L. 1970, ch. 129, § 22-2703; L. 1986, ch. 123, § 17; L. 1992, ch. 239, § 251; July 1, 1993.
Source or Prior Law:
62-729.
Cross References to Related Sections:
Extradition from another state to Kansas, see 22-2722 et seq.
Law Review and Bar Journal References:
Section supplemented to cover a specific case, Richard H. Seaton and Paul E. Wilson, 39 J.B.A.K. 97, 163 (1970).
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Governor's warrant presumed valid; burden of proof on petitioner to overcome prima facie case. Woody v. State, 215 Kan. 353, 356, 360, 361, 524 P.2d 1150.
2. Application for requisition clearly indicated petitioner was fugitive, although not literally "escapee"; request sufficient. Dean v. Sheriff of Leavenworth County, 217 Kan. 669, 670, 538 P.2d 725.
3. Act construed and applied; extradition proceedings initiated by governor of Colorado; Kansas habeas corpus writ ordered discharged. McCullough v. Darr, 219 Kan. 477, 480, 548 P.2d 1245.
4. Texas indictments accompanying extradition requests did not disclose crimes were committed in Kansas; governor's warrant not fatally defective; habeas corpus denied. Greenbaum v. Darr, 220 Kan. 525, 552 P.2d 993.
5. Complaint void of supporting factual information insufficient to support extradition. Wilbanks v. State, 224 Kan. 66, 77, 579 P.2d 132.
6. Provisions disjunctive; provides for alternative showings; form required. Longoria v. Sheriff of Leavenworth County, 225 Kan. 248, 249, 250, 589 P.2d 607.
7. Governor's warrant valid on face and absent contrary evidence, no further showing of validity required; technical defects do not prevent extradition. Gladney v. Sheriff of Leavenworth County, 3 Kan. App. 2d 568, 569, 598 P.2d 559.
8. Probable cause showing unnecessary for extradition when demanding state alleges and documents conviction and escape from confinement or violation of bail, probation or parole. Ellis v. Darr, 7 Kan. App. 2d 285, 286, 640 P.2d 361 (1982).
9. Habeas corpus denied; period of detention and extension thereof, requirements for extradition examined. In re Habeas Corpus Application of Danko, 240 Kan. 431, 435, 731 P.2d 240 (1987).
10. Statutes put police chief and officers on reasonable notice that using sting operation to lure suspect across state line violates extradition act. Ortega v. City of Kansas City, Kansas, 659 F. Supp. 1201 (1987).
11. Criminal suspect has no prearrest extradition rights violation of which can give rise to cause of action under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983; reversing 659 F. Supp. 1201 (1987). Ortega v. City of Kansas City, Kan., 875 F.2d 1497, 1499 (1989).
12. Mandatory (K.S.A. 22-2702) and discretionary (K.S.A. 22-2706) extradition statutes compared; applicability of each determined. Kennon v. State, 248 Kan. 515, 809 P.2d 546 (1991).
13. When governor has discretion to grant extradition demand examined. Dunn v. Hindman, 18 Kan. App. 2d 537, 538, 855 P.2d 994 (1993).
14. Whether state's failure to properly authenticate conviction journal entry rendered extradition warrant fatally defective examined. Alexander v. State, 19 Kan. App. 2d 720, 721, 877 P.2d 5 (1994).
15. Fugitive may challenge ability to consult with attorney with reasonable degree of rational understanding on certain extradition issues. State v. Patton, 285 Kan. 779, 780, 176 P.3d 151 (2008).
|
|