Opinion ID: 1330246
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Extradition

Text: The appellant's second assignment of error is that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the charge of murder against him because he was extradited from Nevada to West Virginia without benefit of counsel. The general rule is that: In interstate extradition proceedings, the prisoner is held under the extradition process only until such time as he reaches the jurisdiction of the demanding state, and is thenceforth held under the process issued out of the courts of that state. Consequently, the regularity of extradition proceedings may be attacked only in the asylum state; after an alleged fugitive has been delivered into the jurisdiction of the demanding state, the proceedings may not be challenged. 31 Am.Jur.2d Extradition § 74 (1967). See Siegel v. Edwards, 566 F.2d 958 (5th Cir. 1978); People v. Klinger, 319 Ill. 275, 149 N.E. 799 (1925); People v. Cartee, 86 Ill. App.3d 895, 42 Ill.Dec. 18, 408 N.E.2d 396 (1980). See also Campbell v. Smith, 308 F.Supp. 796 (S.D.Ga.1970); People v. Willingham, 271 Cal.App.2d 562, 76 Cal.Rptr. 760 (1969), cert. denied 397 U.S. 993, 90 S.Ct. 1129, 25 L.Ed.2d 401 (1970). Moreover, this Court has held in syllabus point 5 of State ex rel. Sublett v. Adams, 145 W.Va. 354, 115 S.E.2d 158 (1960), cert. denied 366 U.S. 933, 81 S.Ct. 1652, 6 L.Ed.2d 392 (1961) that once a defendant who has been extradited to this State the method of [the defendant's] return, even though illegal or forcible, does not invalidate his conviction ... under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. We, therefore, hold that once a fugitive has been brought within the jurisdiction of West Virginia as the demanding state the propriety of the extradition proceedings which occurred in the asylum state may not be challenged. The extradition proceedings may be challenged only in the asylum state. Accordingly, we find appellant's second contention to be without merit.