Court Opinion

ID: 9470375
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 03:04:10.80671+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:41:51.916042
License: Public Domain

JOHN R. GIBSON, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent and would deny the petition for habeas corpus, for the reasons set forth by the experienced district judge in his well reasoned order denying the petition.
The basis for the majority opinion is simply that petitioner was not accorded the pretransfer hearing contemplated by Mo. Rev.Stat. § 548.101. The purpose of this hearing is to give the petitioner notice of the extradition demand and of the charges against him, and to inform him of the right to counsel and the right to challenge the extradition in a habeas proceeding. While the hearing was not held, as the district court observed:
In the present case, the petitioner obviously received notice of the demand and the charges against him as his own pleadings indicate. Although it does not appear he was expressly informed of his right to secure counsel and to challenge *1276the extradition in habeas, he did in fact secure the services of an inmate law clerk and had his day in court on the state habeas corpus petition. Hence, although in some instances the failure to provide a pretransfer hearing could possibly rise to constitutional proportions, it did not in this instance as the interests sought to be served by the hearing were effectuated. In addition, the petitioner has not alleged that the State’s failure to comply with the Extradition Act caused him harm, either in his defense to the pending state charges or his status in the Missouri State Penitentiary. Huff v. United States, 599 F.2d 860 (8th Cir.1979).
I agree with the district court that the interests sought to be served by the hearing were effectuated in this case. Petitioner has not shown that the failure to comply with the statute was a fundamental defect which inherently resulted in a complete miscarriage of justice. Davis v. United States, 417 U.S. 333, 346, 94 S.Ct. 2298, 2305, 41 L.Ed.2d 109, 119 (1974).