Title: State Ex Rel. Howard v. St. Joseph Superior Court

State: indiana

Issuer: Indiana Supreme Court

Document:

316 N.E.2d 356 (1974)
STATE of Indiana On the Relation of Boyd Howard, Petitioner (Relator),
v.
ST. JOSEPH SUPERIOR COURT, St. Joseph County, Indiana, and the Honorable George N. Beamer, Jr., Judge, Respondents.
No. 574S92.

Supreme Court of Indiana.
September 12, 1974.
*357 Robert L. Stephan, South Bend, for petitioner-relator.
HUNTER, Justice.
This is an original action in which the only issue raised is whether this Court should mandate the respondent judge to set bail pending relator's appeal from the denial of his writ of habeas corpus. It is respondent's position that Indiana trial judges have no authority to let petitioners to bail in the situations presented by the instant facts.
On November 19, 1973, the relator was arrested and incarcerated in St. Joseph County pursuant to a Governor's Warrant issued upon requisition by the Governor of Michigan. On November 20, 1973, relator filed his petition for writ of habeas corpus and hearing was set for December 4, 1973. An evidentiary hearing was finally held on March 29, 1974, at the conclusion of which the respondent made the following record:
Thereupon relator moved to be released on bail which motion was denied on the grounds that respondent had no authority to set bail on these facts. To be sure, no authority for fixing bail in such a situation can be found in our rules of criminal procedure, in our statutes, nor in the appellate decisions of this State.
Our constitutional provisions regarding bail, Article 1, Section 17, has been compiled in IC 1971, XX-X-XX-X:
The statutes of most states contain similar provisions. The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, IC 1971, XX-X-X-XX, reads in pertinent part as follows:
*358 Neither the constitutional provision nor the Uniform Act encompasses the instant situation, i.e., post-issuance of the executive warrants.
It is the majority rule throughout the country, outside the federal system, that bail may generally not be set for a prisoner under a warrant of rendition. The supporting rationale for such a rule is clear and was aptly stated nearly fifty years ago by the Supreme Court of Florida:
Such rule has consistently been followed by the Florida courts. See, Buchanan v. State ex rel. Weiss (1964), Fla.App., 166 So. 2d 596; Tomarchin v. Kelly (1960), Fla.App., 118 So. 2d 788.
The State of New Jersey has addressed the issue and has reached a like result:
In State ex rel. Hildebrand v. Moeller (1931), 182 Minn. 369, 234 N.W. 649, the Supreme Court was faced with an application to fix bail under facts similar to the case at bar:
The State of Delaware has concurred:
None of relator's cited authority holds to the contrary. In Mozorosky v. Hurlburt (1921), 106 Or. 274, 198 P. 556, the issue of extradition coupled with bail pending appeal of denial of habeas was not before the court. Neither was such issue before the courts citing Mozorosky with approval.
Our research has disclosed an Ohio case allowing bail to be set in such situation. Ruther v. Sweeney (1956), Ohio App. 137 N.E.2d 292. However, the Ruther decision was based upon express statutory authority that does not exist in Indiana:
137 N.E.2d  at 296.
Relator argues that "if a person can be let to bail pending the outcome of the extradition proceedings it would be highly illogical not to permit him to be let to bail pending the outcome of his appeal on the ultimate question of the legality of the judgment that he be returned to the demanding state." Such contention has been answered by the Supreme Court of Nevada:
*362 The Arizona Supreme Court addressed the same contention in Waller v. Jordan (1941), 58 Ariz. 169, 118 P.2d 450, 452:
Finally, we concur completely in the rationale expressed in Buchanan v. State ex rel. Weiss, supra:
This court's prior denial of an alternative writ is hereby sustained by this opinion. And the trial court's judgment in denying bail is hereby affirmed.
Writ denied.
ARTERBURN, C.J., and GIVAN and PRENTICE, JJ., concur.
DeBRULER, J., votes to grant the writ without opinion.