Source: https://opd.ohio.gov/The-Library/Criminal-Law-Casebook/Extradition
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 22:34:48+00:00

Document:
U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Sec 2: "A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime."
Revised Code, Chapter 2963 -- Extradition.
R.C. 2151.61 -- Extradition of juveniles.
State v. Owens, 181 Ohio App. 3d 725, 2009-Ohio-1508 – Defendant was jailed in Pennsylvania when sentencing date came up in Ohio. He waived extradition, but the Pennsylvania authorities refused to release him. During the following thirteen months the state failed to initiate formal extradition proceedings or pursue alternatives such as a video conference or obtain an agreement to be sentenced in absentia. Trial court lost the authority to impose a sentence, though the convictions stand. IAD doesn‘t require dismissal charges when conviction has been entered and the defendant is merely awaiting sentencing.
State v. Nunez, 164 Ohio App. 3d 420, 2005-Ohio-6261 -- Defendant was extradited from Mexico to stand trial for two murders. Mexico was concerned that he not face the death penalty or serving life without parole. Documents from the county prosecutor and Justice Department offered assurances the maximum penalty would be thirty to life. Additional time on firearm specifications was beyond the agreement and must be deleted from the sentence.
State v. Sharrar, Lucas App. No. L-03-1257 -- An entry finding the state has proven identity in an extradition case is not a final appealable order.
Sharrar v. Telb, Lucas App. No. L-03-1313, 2003-Ohio-6377 -- Habeas action challenged increase in bail after arrest on governor's warrant. ¶ 6: "...(T)he trial court was authorized to keep petitioner in confinement for a total of 90 days while awaiting service of the governor's warrant. Petitioner's release on OR or bond was at the discretion of the trial court. After petitioner was served and arrested pursuant to the official governor's warrant, a new phase of extradition proceedings began. The trial court was then authorized to impose more stringent conditions in order to assure petitioner's appearance. Therefore, since the trial court had jurisdiction to increase the bond, petitioner is not entitled to be released."
State v. Neville, Belmont App. No. 03 BE 68, 2004-Ohio-6840 -- Defendant absconded between entry of plea and sentencing hearing. He is entitled to jail time credit for the time spent in custody in Pennsylvania awaiting extradition as R.C. 2967.191 reaches confinement for any reason arising out of the offense for which the prisoner was convicted and sentenced.
Waters v. Wolfe, 114 Ohio St. 3d 151, 2007-Ohio-3761 -- Waiver of extradition in response to the request of one Ohio county makes the subject available for prosecution in all counties.
Puerto Rico v. Branstad (1987), 483 U.S. 219 -- The command of the extradition clause does not allow the governor of the asylum state discretion in delivering up fugitives. The state seeking extradition of a fugitive may resort to the federal court to compel the executive of the asylum state to deliver fugitives upon proper demand.
California v. Superior Court of California (1987), 482 U.S. 400 -- Under the Extradition Clause and the Extradition Act of 1793 the asylum state may do no more than ascertain (1) that the extradition documents on their face are in order, (2) that the subject has been charged with a crime in the demanding state, (3) that the subject is the person named in the request for extradition, and (4) that he is a fugitive. The asylum state may not inquire into the sufficiency of the indictment under which extradition is sought. Also see Michigan v. Doran (1978), 439 U.S. 282.
In re Terry (1988), 51 Ohio App. 3d 133 -- In addition to the four factors enumerated in California v. Superior Court of California (1987), 482 U.S. 400 and Michigan v. Doran (1978), 439 U.S. 282, the court states that Ohio courts may consider two additional matters: (1) Whether the extradition is to enforce a civil liability; and (2) whether the petitioner asserting an invalid arrest under the governor's warrant is able to rebut its presumed validity by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Also see State, ex rel. Gilpin, v. Stokes (1984), 19 Ohio App. 3d 99.
In re Rowe (1981), 67 Ohio St. 2d 115 -- Extradition to another state may be contested by means of habeas corpus. Under federal law. a demanding state is not entitled to the return of one who was not corporally present in that state at the time the offense was committed (Ohio law is broader). The accused bears the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that he is not a fugitive from the demanding state. Also see State v. Barone (1984), 21 Ohio App. 3d 97; Bradley v. Hickey (1982), 70 Ohio St. 2d 277.
In re Hollander (1981), 2 Ohio App. 3d 282 -- In a habeas action contesting extradition, the court may not consider the merits of the case or the guilt or innocence of the accused.
Carpenter v. Jamerson (1982), 69 Ohio St. 2d 308 -- Syllabus: "A proceeding in habeas corpus brought in an asylum state by a fugitive from justice arrested on a warrant of extradition is a summary proceeding and very limited in scope. (2) The term 'fugitive from justice' as contemplated by the extradition statutes includes an individual who violates the conditions of his probation."
Ruther v. Sweeney (1956), 75 Ohio Law Abs. 385 -- Bail may be set during pendency of a habeas action contesting extradition unless the underlying offense is not bailable. Also see R.C. 2963.14 (bail).
Helm v. Jago (1977), 50 Ohio St. 2d 168, 169 -- "The release of an accused by one sovereignty to another, so that the receiving sovereignty may enforce its criminal laws against him, does not constitute a waiver of jurisdiction over the accused, nor does it estop the releasing state from subsequently either enforcing a previously imposed sentence or subjecting the accused to further criminal proceedings."
State ex rel. Childs v. Wingard (1998), 83 Ohio St. 3d 346 -- Petitioner was extradited on a charge of murder, but was ultimately reindicted and convicted of aggravated murder. According to R.C. 2963.26 he could be tried for any offense committed in this state. Ex parte McKnight (1891), 48 Ohio St. 588 indicating otherwise predated an earlier version of this statute and is not controlling.
State v. Adkins (1992), 80 Ohio App. 3d 817, 822 -- The illegible signature of judge on out of state arrest warrant does not invalidate extradition documents.
In re Extradition of Adams (1989), 63 Ohio App. 3d 638 -- Since Ohio resident mother's denial of visitation was an offense under California law, where a visitation order had been made in a paternity action, she could be extradited to that state on such a charge. Also see In re Harris (1959), 170 Ohio St. 151.
Brown v. Nutsch (8th Cir. 1980), 619 F. 2d 758, 762 -- "Force, improprieties or irregularities in the extradition process do not invalidate a subsequent conviction."
Goree v. Cunningham (1985), 18 Ohio St. 3d 160 -- Since Evid. R. 101(C)(3) provides that the Rules of Evidence do not apply at extradition hearings, hearsay testimony of an out of state police officer as to identification of defendant's photo by witnesses was properly admitted. Statutory requirement that a copy of the arrest warrant be produced is merely directory.
Hanson v. Smith (1990), 67 Ohio App. 3d 420 -- Photographs and other materials in "rendition package" forwarded by California authorities were sufficient to identify person in custody in Ohio as person sought.
In re Complaint for Habeas Corpus of Beverly (1992), 75 Ohio App. 3d 540 -- A person may still be a fugitive even though there was an adequate opportunity for prosecution to be initiated before he left the state seeking extradition.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.