Court Opinion

ID: 9646505
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 13:01:25.491139+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:38.698489
License: Public Domain

SPAETH, Judge,
concurring:
I agree with the majority that we cannot at this point hear challenges to appellant’s extradition based on the irregularities that appellant alleges. See Commonwealth v. Perry, 475 Pa.Super. 1, 379 A.2d 545 (1977), Commonwealth ex rel. Myers v. Case, 250 Pa.Super. 242, 378 A.2d 917 (1977). I note that appellant suffered no prejudice to his defense despite the discrepancy between the charge for which he was being held and the charge alleged in the subsequent *321Governors’ Warrants, because he had almost two months before the extradition hearing to prepare a defense against the allegations made in the Governors’ Warrants.
Nevertheless, one cannot help but wonder about the action of the authorities in holding appellant for one charge while obtaining Governors’ Warrants on the basis of a different charge. While there is no evidence in the record to tell us why this happened, one can imagine a case in which the authorities, while waiting for correct extradition papers for one crime, detain a person for “safe-keeping” by arresting him for another crime which the authorities have no probable cause to suppose he really committed. I do not understand the majority opinion to imply that in the event of such an abuse of power the courts would be powerless to grant relief.
HOFFMAN, J., joins in this opinion.