Case Title: The People &c., ex rel. Howard Glenn Blake, alleged to be Wayne Barnett

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: new-york

Court: New York Appellate Court

Date: 2010-01-12T00:00:00Z

Document:
- 1 -
=================================================================
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before
publication in the New York Reports.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
No. 57  SSM 57
The People &c., ex rel. Howard 
Glenn Blake, alleged to be Larry 
Wayne Barnett,
            Appellant,
        v.
George E. Pataki, etc.
            Respondent.
Harry H. Kutner, Jr., for appellant.
Michael Blakey, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM:
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed,
without costs.  The certified question should not be answered
upon the ground that it is unnecessary.
Once a governor of an asylum state has granted
extradition, a court considering release on habeas corpus must
- 2 -
SSM No. 57
- 2 -
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" (Michigan v Doran, 439 US 282, 289
[1978]).  A fugitive is one who, "having committed a crime in a
demanding State, is present in an asylum State when a demanding
State seeks to prosecute the offense" (People ex rel. Strachan v
Colon, 77 NY2d 499, 502-503 [1991]).  Relator is a fugitive
because he was convicted of a crime in South Carolina and escaped
from incarceration.  If, in 1993 or thereafter, South Carolina
determined that it no longer sought to classify relator as a
fugitive, it could have granted relator a pardon.  Hence,
relator's equitable arguments are more appropriately posited to
South Carolina.
*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules,
order affirmed, without costs, and certified question not
answered upon the ground that it is unnecessary, in a memorandum.
Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith,
Pigott and Jones concur.
Decided January 12, 2010