Title: In re Ladd

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under V.R.A.P. 40
as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont Reports.
Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Vermont Supreme
Court, 111 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05602 of any errors in order
that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.


                                No. 91-289


In re Eugene Ladd                            Supreme Court

                                             On Appeal from
                                             Chittenden Superior Court


                                             June Term, 1991


Matthew I. Katz, J.

E.M. Allen, Defender General, and William Nelson, Appellate Attorney,
  Montpelier, for petitioner-appellant

William Sorrell, Chittenden County State's Attorney, Burlington, and
  Pamela Hall Johnson, Appellate Prosecutor, Montpelier, for respondent-
  appellee


PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.


     DOOLEY, J.   Petitioner, Eugene Ladd, who is held under an extradition
warrant, appeals the trial court's denial of his petition for a writ of
habeas corpus.  We reverse.
     On April 12, 1991, the Governor of Florida filed a request for extra-
dition, stating that petitioner had violated the terms of his probation
imposed after a conviction for theft of a motor vehicle.  The Governor's
request was supported by a copy of the judgment of conviction, dated July
14, 1983, which showed that petitioner had been convicted of the theft and
sentenced to five years' probation.  The request was also accompanied by
copies of the following documents:  (1) an affidavit of a Florida assistant
state attorney, alleging that there was "sufficient evidence" to revoke
petitioner's probation; (2) a February 1991 affidavit of a probation
officer, stating that petitioner had been placed on two years' "community
control" for theft of a motor vehicle on September 2, 1988, and alleging
that petitioner had violated various terms of his community control during
the months of September 1990 through January 1991; and (3) an arrest
warrant, dated February 5, 1991 and signed by a Florida circuit court judge,
restating each of the allegations made in the probation officer's affidavit,
with one notable exception -- the warrant stated that petitioner had been
placed on community control "on the 2nd day of September A.D. 1991." (FN1)
     In his challenge to extradition, petitioner claimed, among other
things, that the documents filed in support of the request failed to show
that he had violated the terms of his probation, (FN2) as required by Vermont's
version of the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, 13 V.S.A. {{ 4941-4969.
Petitioner maintained that on the face of the documents, his probation had
expired long before any of the alleged misdeeds had occurred.  The trial
court rejected petitioner's argument, explaining that it would not "look
behind" the Florida arrest warrant.  Petitioner renews this claim on
appeal.
     We begin by emphasizing our limited function in reviewing the legality
of a sister state's extradition request.  Our sole task is to ensure the
validity of the requisition warrant and procedural compliance with our
extradition statute, In re Graziani, ___ Vt. ___, ___, 591 A.2d 91, 93
(1991), and we will not look behind these documents or examine the merits of
the charges against petitioner.  In re Moskaluk, ___ Vt. ___ , ___, 591 A.2d 95, 97 (1991).
     13 V.S.A. { 4943 sets out the pertinent requirements for an extradition
request based on an alleged violation of probation or parole.  Under {
4943(a), the extradition demand must include "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 . . . broken the terms of his . . . probation or parole."  In
addition, { 4943(b) states that no extradition warrant shall be issued
unless the accompanying documents "show that . . . [the person] has been
convicted of a crime in that state and has . . . broken the terms of his
. . . probation or parole."  These two sections provide the grounds for the
issuance of an extradition warrant and must be read together.  Graziani, ___
Vt. at ___, 591 A.2d  at 93.
     We have made it clear that { 4943(b)'s mandate -- that accompanying
documents "show" that the accused has violated the terms of his probation or
parole -- imposes only a minimal burden on the part of the demanding state.
See Moskaluk, ___ Vt. at ___, 591 A.2d  at 98 (no requirement that documents
show probable cause to believe that fugitive violated his probation).
Although the burden is minimal, it is not nonexistent.  To comply with the
Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, the demanding state must establish, on the
face of its documents, that:  (1) the person sought was convicted of a
crime; (2) a period of probation or parole was imposed; (3) the person has
broken the terms of his or her probation or parole; and (4) the sentence had
not expired at the time of the alleged violation.  See In re Hval, 148 Vt.
544, 546,