Case ID: mich-app_17/html/0411-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

PEOPLE v. BRAZIEL
    Constitutional Law — Due Process — Assignment op Counsel— Criminal Law — Extradition.
    A defendant, if indigent, is entitled to the appointment of assigned counsel at extradition proceedings (CL 1948, § 780.9).
    Reference por Points in Headnote
    31 Am Jur 2d, Extradition § 64.
    Appeal from Berrien, Julian Hughes, J. Submitted Division 3 May 6, 1969, at Detroit.
    (Docket No. 7,210.)
    Decided May 27, 1969.
    Circuit court denied defendant’s request for appointment of counsel in extradition proceedings. Defendant appeals.
    Remanded.
    
      Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengo ski, Solicitor General, Ronald J. Taylor., Prosecuting Attorney, and Wilbur Schillinger, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
    
      Edward M. Yampolsky (Berrien County Legal Services Bureau), for defendant.
    BEFORE: Levin, P. J., and J. H. Gillis and V. J. Brennan, JJ.
   Per Curiam.

Defendant was arrested in Berrien county for the commission of a robbery in the State of Florida. The complaint and warrant charged him with being a fugitive from justice. At arraignment he requested appointment of counsel, but the request was denied by the district judge. At a hearing before a Berrien county circuit judge the request was renewed. The court, in an order dated March 24,1969, denied the appointment of counsel “for reason that said appointment in extradition proceedings is not required in the State of Michigan.” Defendant brought the matter to our attention in an emergency application for leave to appeal from that order.

We are of the opinion that defendant, if indigent, is entitled to the appointment of assigned counsel, and that this result is required by § 10 of the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (MCLA § 780.9 [Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.1285(9)]) for the reasons, which we hereby adopt, stated in People, ex rel. Harris, v. Ogilvie (1966), 35 Ill 2d 512 (221 NE2d 265) and Ex parte Turner (Tex Crim App, 1967), 410 SW2d 639, construing § 10 of that act.

Remanded to the trial court for a determination whether defendant is indigent and further proceedings consistent with this opinion.