Opinion
No. 349684
08-20-2020
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CORNELIUS TATE, Defendant-Appellee.
If this opinion indicates that it is "FOR PUBLICATION," it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports. UNPUBLISHED Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 19-004501-01-AX Before: REDFORD, P.J., and METER and O'BRIEN, JJ. PER CURIAM.
In this extradition proceeding, the prosecution appeals as of right the trial court's order dismissing the May 16, 2019 governor's warrant for defendant's extradition to the state of Ohio. On appeal, the prosecution argues that the trial court erred when it dismissed the May 16, 2019 governor's warrant because (1) the trial court failed to comply with the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, MCL 780.1 et seq., when it summarily dismissed the governor's warrant without affording the prosecution the opportunity to respond to any purported defects, and (2) the trial court's holding is not justified by the doctrines of res judicata or collateral estoppel because the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel do not apply to successive extradition proceedings. We reverse and remand.
I. PRIOR PROCEEDINGS
On September 24, 2018, the Governor of the state of Michigan issued a governor's warrant for the arrest and extradition of defendant under the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act. The governor's warrant provided that the Governor of the state of Ohio requested the arrest and extradition of defendant because defendant fled Ohio after he was charged with one count of engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity, ORC 2923.32(A)(1), and four counts of trafficking in heroin, ORC 2925.03(A)(1).
The trial court held a habeas corpus hearing on the September 24, 2018 governor's warrant. The parties stipulated that defendant was charged with a crime in the state of Ohio, and the only matter before the trial court was whether defendant was considered a fugitive from Ohio. There were several dates in question in which the prosecution alleged that defendant was present in the state of Ohio. Defendant produced time-stamped photographs showing that defendant was in the state of Michigan on one of the dates in question. Defendant also produced a receipt showing that defendant's credit card was used to check into a hotel in the state of Michigan on one of the dates in question. Additionally, defendant produced receipts showing that defendant's debit card was used to make withdrawals from an ATM located in the state of Michigan on the remaining dates in question.
In response, the prosecution asserted that this evidence failed to establish that defendant was not present in the state of Ohio on the dates in question because defendant may have changed the time stamp on the photographs, may not have been the individual that checked into the hotel, and may not have been the individual that made withdrawals at the ATM. However, the prosecution was unable to produce any evidence that defendant was in the state of Ohio on the dates in question. Thus, the trial court concluded that "defendant has met the burden of proof. There is reasonable doubt that the defendant was in the State of Ohio on the dates and times that the State of Ohio has presented[.]" Thus, the trial court denied extradition and dismissed the September 24, 2018 governor's warrant.
II. CURRENT PROCEEDINGS
On May 16, 2019, the Governor of the state of Michigan issued a second governor's warrant for the arrest and extradition of defendant on the same basis as the September 24, 2018 governor's warrant. The trial court held an arraignment hearing regarding the May 16, 2019 governor's warrant. Defendant and his counsel were both present at the hearing. Although a police officer appeared on behalf of the Wayne County Sheriff's Department, the prosecuting attorney was not present at the hearing, and it is unclear whether the prosecution had notice of the hearing. No evidence was presented at the hearing. Instead, the trial court dismissed the matter, reasoning that "[t]he State has not produced any additional information to be provided to this Court than was provided [at the first extradition hearing]." The trial court entered an order dismissing the May 16, 2019 governor's warrant. This appeal followed.
III. DISCUSSION
On appeal, the prosecution argues that the trial court erred when it dismissed the May 16, 2019 governor's warrant because the trial court failed to comply with the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act when it summarily dismissed the governor's warrant. We agree.
"The scope of review in passing upon a writ of habeas corpus by the courts of the custody state is generally limited to questions of identity, fugitivity, and regularity of the extradition procedure." In re Boynton, 302 Mich App 632, 637; 840 NW2d 762 (2013) (citation and quotation marks omitted). "However, the interpretation of a statute presents a question of law that this Court reviews de novo." Id. (citation omitted).
The United States Constitution provides:
A person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime. [US Const, Art IV, § 2, cl 2.]In conducting extradition proceedings, state courts are bound by US Const, Art IV, § 2, cl 2, and, where adopted, the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act. Michigan v Doran, 439 US 282, 288-289; 99 S Ct 530; 58 L Ed 2d 521 (1978). Michigan has adopted the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act. MCL 780.1 et seq. The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act "shall be so interpreted and construed as to effectuate its general purposes to make uniform the law of those states which enact it." MCL 780.28. In regard to the rights of the accused arrested upon a governor's warrant, the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act provides:
No person arrested upon such warrant shall be delivered over to the agent whom the executive authority demanding him shall have appointed to receive him unless he shall first be taken forthwith before a judge of a court of record in this state, who shall inform him of the demand made for his surrender and of the crime with which he is charged, and that he has the right to demand and procure legal counsel; and if the prisoner or his counsel shall state that he or they desire to test the legality of his arrest, the judge of such court of record shall fix a reasonable time to be allowed him within which to apply for a writ of habeas corpus. When such writ is applied for, notice thereof, and of the time and place of hearing thereon, shall be given to the prosecuting officer of the county in which the arrest is made and in which the accused is in custody, and to the said agent of the demanding state. [MCL 780.9.]
"A governor's grant of extradition is prima facie evidence that the constitutional and statutory requirements have been met." Doran, 439 US at 289. Once extradition has been granted by the Governor of the state of Michigan, a trial court considering release on habeas corpus can do no more than decide "(a) whether the extradition documents on their face are in order; (b) whether the petitioner has been charged with a crime in the demanding state; (c) whether the petitioner is the person named in the request for extradition; and (d) whether the petitioner is a fugitive." Id.; People v Wendt, 107 Mich App 269, 274; 309 NW2d 230 (1981).
During the hearing on the May 16, 2019 governor's warrant, the trial court determined that defendant was entitled to habeas relief, although defendant did not request it, because defendant previously rebutted the presumption that he was a fugitive from the state of Ohio. More specifically, the trial court determined that defendant previously presented evidence that he was not present in Ohio on the dates that the alleged crimes occurred. In extradition proceedings, fugitivity is shown when a "defendant is ascertained to be the person wanted in the demanding state and was present in the demanding state at the time the alleged offense occurred." In re Boynton, 302 Mich App at 648. Once a governor grants extradition, the governor's "decision on fugitivity creates a presumption which may be overturned by contrary proof in habeas corpus proceedings." Williams v Wayne County Sheriff, 395 Mich 204, 216; 235 NW2d 552 (1975). Habeas corpus relief is warranted if a defendant shows beyond a reasonable doubt that he or she was not present in the demanding state at the time the alleged offense occurred. South Carolina v Bailey, 289 US 412, 422; 53 S Ct 667; 77 L Ed 1292 (1933).
At the outset, we note that the trial court failed to comply with MCL 780.9 at the arraignment hearing by not informing defendant of the allegations against him, or of his rights under MCL 780.9. Under MCL 780.9, an individual arrested upon a governor's warrant shall not be turned over to the demanding state unless he or she is first taken before a judge and informed of the governor's warrant, the crimes with which he or she is charged, that he or she has the right to counsel, and that he or she may challenge the validity of an arrest by requesting a reasonable period of time to apply for a writ of habeas corpus to rebut the presumption of fugitivity. During the arraignment hearing, the trial court failed to inform defendant of any of the allegations against him or advise him of his rights. Additionally, defendant never requested a reasonable period of time to apply for a writ of habeas corpus to rebut the presumption of fugitivity. Therefore, defendant never had the opportunity to rebut the presumption of fugitivity arising from the May 16, 2019 governor's warrant, and defendant never presented any evidence in order to do so.
Even if defendant had requested a reasonable period of time to apply for a writ of habeas corpus, the trial court's decision to dismiss the May 16, 2019 governor's warrant at the arraignment hearing would have been inconsistent with the requirements of MCL 780.9. If defendant had requested a reasonable period of time to apply for a writ of habeas corpus, the trial court would have been required to schedule a hearing regarding defendant's application for a writ of habeas corpus and provide the prosecution with notice of the hearing under MCL 780.9. The trial court did not do so, and instead, it dismissed the governor's warrant at the arraignment hearing without input from the prosecutor.
Moreover, the trial court's failure to inform defendant of his right to seek a habeas corpus hearing, and the corresponding failure to hold a habeas corpus hearing, upheld defendant's presumptive status as a fugitive. The May 16, 2019 governor's warrant was prima facie evidence that the constitutional and statutory requirements of extradition had been met, which created a presumption of fugitivity. Doran, 439 US at 289. This presumption could only be rebutted in a habeas corpus hearing by establishing, beyond a reasonable doubt, that defendant was not in Ohio at the time of the charged offenses. Id.; Bailey, 289 US at 422. Without a habeas corpus hearing, defendant was presumptively a fugitive, and the trial court erred by dismissing the governor's warrant.
In sum, the trial court was required to inform defendant of the charges against him and advise him of his rights, including the opportunity to file a writ of habeas corpus to challenge the charges. MCL 780.9. The trial court failed to do so in this case, which was error requiring reversal. Moreover, defendant was not afforded the opportunity to rebut his presumptive status as a fugitive. Because we conclude that the trial court erred by failing to comply with MCL 780.9, we need not address the prosecution's remaining argument on appeal.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings. We do not retain jurisdiction.
/s/ James Robert Redford
/s/ Patrick M. Meter
/s/ Colleen A. O'Brien