US SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
524 U.S. 151
Subscribe to Cases that cite 524 U.S. 151OCTOBER TERM, 1997
Per Curiam
NEW MEXICO EX REL. ORTIZ v. REED
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW MEXICO
No. 97-1217. Decided June 8,1998
Mter Ohio officials told respondent they planned to revoke his parole, he fled to New Mexico. That State's Governor issued an extradition warrant, and respondent was arrested. ANew Mexico trial court granted him habeas relief on his claim that he was not a "fugitive" for extradition purposes because he fled under duress, believing that Ohio authorities intended to revoke his parole without due process and to cause him physical harm if he were returned to prison. The State Supreme Court affirmed.
Held: The Extradition Clause imposes a mandatory duty on the asylum State, affording no discretion to its executive officers or courts. Once a Governor has granted extradition, a court considering release on habeas can decide only whether (a) the documents on their face are in order; (b) the petitioner has been charged with a crime in the demanding State; (c) the petitioner is the person named in the extradition request; and (d) the petitioner is a fugitive. Michigan v. Doran, 439 U. S. 282, 289. Claims relating to what actually happened in the demanding State, the law of that State, and what may be expected to happen in that State when the fugitive returns are issues to be decided by the demanding State, not the asylum State. See Pacileo v. Walker, 449 U. S. 86, 88 (per curiam).
Certiorari granted; 124 N. M. 129, 947 P. 2d 86, reversed and remanded.
PER CURIAM.
Respondent, sentenced to a term of 25 years upon conviction of armed robbery and theft of drugs, was paroled from the Ohio correctional system in 1992. In the following year Ohio prison officials told respondent they planned to revoke his parole status. Before the scheduled date of his meeting with his parole officer, respondent fled from Ohio to New Mexico.
Ohio sought extradition and the Governor of New Mexico issued a warrant directing the extradition of respondent. He was arrested in October 1994, and later that year sought
a writ of habeas corpus from the New Mexico State District Court. He claimed he was not a "fugitive" for purposes of extradition because he fled under duress, believing that Ohio authorities intended to revoke his parole without due process and to cause him physical harm if he were returned to an Ohio prison. In January 1995, the New Mexico trial court ruled in favor of respondent and directed his release from custody. The State appealed this order, and in September 1997 the Supreme Court of New Mexico affirmed the grant of habeas corpus. 124 N. M. 129, 947 P. 2d 86 (1997). The State has petitioned for certiorari from that decision.
Article IV of the United States Constitution provides that:
"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." Art. IV, § 2, cl. 2.
The Extradition Act, 18 U. S. C. § 3182, provides the procedures by which this constitutional command is carried out.
In Michigan v. Doran, 439 U. S. 282 (1978), we said:
"Once the Governor has granted extradition, a 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. These are historic facts readily verifiable." Id., at 289.
The Supreme Court of New Mexico agreed that the first three requirements had been met, but decided that respondent was not a "fugitive" from justice; in the words of the Supreme Court of New Mexico, he was a "refugee from injustice." 124 N. M, at 146, 947 P. 2d, at 103. That court held
