Opinion ID: 2633743
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Kostic

Text: The Alaska Supreme Court was the first court to address the relevance of competency in an extradition proceeding. In Kostic, 522 P.2d 535, the fugitive sought habeas corpus relief in Alaska courts to avoid extradition to Florida. He raised the question of his competency to proceed at the habeas corpus hearing and was denied relief. The record showed that Kostic had been examined by a psychiatrist in connection with a separate criminal action then pending in Alaska. That examination was ordered by the court because of Kostic's previous history of psychiatric illness and his attempt to commit suicide while in jail. Civil commitment proceedings were then initiated; Kostic was found mentally ill and was committed for treatment. He remained hospitalized at the time of the extradition proceedings. The Kostic court stated that a situation might exist in which a petitioner is so incompetent as to be unable to assist counsel in a habeas corpus proceeding in connection with a pending extradition, and it concluded that this was one such case. 522 P.2d at 537. The Kostic court mentioned that a person in this situation has an express statutory right to challenge the legality of the arrest and `to demand and procure legal counsel.' 522 P.2d at 537. The court further emphasized, however, that if the arrestee could not understand the nature of the habeas corpus proceedings or assist counsel in testing the legality of the arrest, then legal representation would be a farce. 522 P.2d at 537. The result, according to the Kostic court, would cause the statutory right to representation to become a nullity. 522 P.2d at 537. This reasoning lead the Kostic court to conclude that conducting an extradition proceeding while the petitioner is mentally incompetent violates due process. Noting that habeas corpus proceedings are traditionally considered to be civil, the court stated: But where a possible deprivation of one's liberty is involved, as it is in an extradition matter, habeas corpus proceedings in relation to extradition will be considered criminal in nature. 522 P.2d at 537 (citing Mora v. Dist. Ct., 177 Colo. 381, 494 P.2d 596 [19721). Observing that in the criminal trial context it is a violation of due process to convict a person who is mentally incompetent to stand trial, the court then applied this standard to extradition proceedings. Consequently, the court held that Kostic's extradition had to be stayed until his competency was restored. 522 P.2d at 538-39.