Court Opinion

ID: 9756310
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 21:22:26.416123+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:19.184210
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Packed, J.:
Counsel for the defendant complains in this extradition case that he was entitled as a matter of right to a continuance in order to initiate habeas corpus proceedings.1 Although §10 of the Uniform Criminal Extradi*197tion Act2 provides for that right when the arrest is made upon the Governor’s warrant, there is no such right provided for under §13 of that Act when the arrest is on a complaint.
The Supreme Court has noted in Commonwealth ex rel. Huey v. Dye, 373 Pa. 508, 512, 96 A. 2d 129, 131 (1953), that the proceedings on complaint and answer thereto serve the same purposes as the habeas corpus proceeding following arrest on the Governor’s warrant.
The crowded courts should not be required to go through two proceedings when one suffices. Furthermore, witnesses frequently must travel from distant states and should not be required to make repeated appearances. Defendant’s counsel had approximately three months to take appropriate steps if the complaint did not give sufficient information concerning the charges in the other state. He did not seek a continuance upon the grounds of surprise. Rather his complaint was that he had an absolute right to a continuance to initiate a habeas corpus proceeding. Neither the statute nor any reason of policy justifies such bifurcation of a judicial proceeding for extradition.
The order of extradition should be affirmed.
Weight, P. J., and Watkins, J., join in the dissent.

 Appellant’s other contentions are equally devoid of merit. His identity as the person charged in the demanding state was established by the weight of the credible evidence. Commonwealth ex rel. Edgar v. Davis, 425 Pa. 133, 228 A. 2d 742 (1967). Furthermore, *197the requisition papers must be regarded as prima facie proof of appellant’s presence in the demanding state when the offense was committed since he offered no evidence to contradict the papers, Ripepi Extradition Case, 427 Pa. 507, 235 A. 2d 141 (1967).

 Act of July 8, 1941, P. D. 288, §§1-31, 19 P.S. §§191.1-191.31.