Case Title: In re Lambert

Citation: 173 Vt. 604, 795 A.2d 1236

Docket Number: 2002-001

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2002-03-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
In re Lambert (2002-001); 173 Vt. 604; 795 A.2d 1236

[Filed 21-Mar-2002]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2002-001

                             JANUARY TERM, 2002

In re Felicia Lambert	              }	     APPEALED FROM:
                                      }
                                      }
                                      }	     Chittenden Superior Court
                                      }	
                                      }
                                      }	     DOCKET NO. S1429-01CnC

                                             Trial Judge: David Jenkins  

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       Petitioner Felicia Lambert appeals from a superior court order denying
  a habeas corpus  petition seeking to prevent her extradition to
  Massachusetts.  She contends: (1) the documents  accompanying the
  extradition request did not comply with statutory requirements; and (2) her 
  detention was in violation of federal law.  We affirm. 

       On April 5, 2001, following a jury trial in the Chittenden District
  Court, petitioner was  convicted of certain misdemeanor charges.  She was
  released on bail pending sentencing.  Several  days later, she was arrested
  on fugitive-from-justice charges, arraigned and released on conditions.  
  On May 10, the Acting Governor of Massachusetts filed a request for
  extradition with the Governor  of Vermont, stating that petitioner had
  violated the terms of her probation stemming from a felony  larceny
  conviction in Massachusetts.  The Governor of Vermont issued a warrant of
  extradition on  May 30.  Petitioner was arrested on the warrant on June 22,
  and held without bail.  

       On July 20, petitioner was sentenced on the Vermont misdemeanor
  convictions and began  serving her sentence.  On November 30, the district
  court granted a motion to stay execution of the  sentence pending appeal. 
  Petitioner  remained incarcerated, however, on the Governor's warrant.  
  One week later, on December 7, petitioner filed a petition for habeas
  corpus, claiming that the  Massachusetts documents supporting the
  extradition request were deficient under 13 V.S.A. § 4943,  and further
  asserting that her continued incarceration violated due process.

       Under 13 V.S.A. chapter 159, Vermont's codification of the Uniform
  Criminal Extradition  Act, a demand for extradition must be accompanied by
  one or more types of authenticated  documents, including "a copy of a
  judgment of conviction or of a sentence imposed in execution 

 

  thereof."  Id. § 4943(a). (FN1)  The extradition request in this case was
  accompanied by a number of  supporting documents, including one entitled
  "Record of Criminal Case," a certified computer print-out from the
  Massachusetts District Court. (FN2) Under the subheading "Offense and
  Judgment  Information," the document identifies petitioner's offense as
  larceny over $250, indicates a judgment  date of April 10, 1989, a sentence
  of two years and six months, with eighteen months to serve,  and a 
  probation starting date of April 10, 1989 and ending date of April 11,
  1994.  The document also  states that a restitution fine of $22,103 was
  imposed, and notes that an arrest warrant on default was  issued on
  November 27, 1990.
 
       In her habeas petition, petitioner claimed that the Record of Criminal
  Case failed to satisfy §  4943(a)'s requirement of a "judgment of
  conviction."  She relied principally on In re Sousie, 147 Vt.  330, 331,
  516 A.2d 142, 143-44 (1986), in which this Court held that a Massachusetts
  request for  extradition accompanied by a document entitled "warrant"
  failed to satisfy the statutory requirement.  The warrant was essentially a
  mittimus, or transportation order, that was signed by a court clerk and 
  that also indicated the petitioner had been convicted of a crime and the
  length of the sentence  imposed.  Id. at 331, 516 A.2d  at 143.  Sousie
  relied, in turn, on a Florida Court of Appeals decision  holding that
  extradition required at a minimum "'the document representing the official
  court action  of conviction.'"  Id. (quoting Britton v. State, 447 So. 2d 458, 459 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)).  The  trial court here distinguished
  Sousie on this basis, observing that the "Record of Criminal Case" had 
  been signed by a "clerk-magistrate" who is authorized under Massachusetts
  law to perform certain  judicial duties, and represented a "formal and
  regular document generated by the Massachusetts trial  courts in the course
  of 'official court action.'"  Accordingly, it found that the document
  satisfied the  requirements of § 4943.

       Petitioner on appeal renews her claim that the Massachusetts Record of
  Criminal Case was  insufficient to support the extradition warrant. We are
  persuaded, however, that the trial court's  ruling was essentially sound.
  Our conclusion is informed by certain fundamental principles  underlying
  the concept of interstate extradition.   Originating in the Extradition
  Clause of Article IV, 

 

  § 2, cl. 2, of the United States Constitution, (FN3) the United States
  Supreme Court has explained  that the framers' purpose was "to preclude any
  state from becoming a sanctuary for fugitives from  justice of another
  state and thus 'balkanize' the administration of justice among the several
  states. It  articulated, in mandatory language, the concepts of comity and
  full faith and credit."  Michigan v.  Doran,