In re Walton

Good Law
122 Cal. Rptr. 2d 87·2002 Cal. App. LEXIS 4332·2002 Daily Journal DAR 7367·99 Cal. App. 4th 934·2002 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5833
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 26, 2002No. B153201California15,440 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Woods, J.

In this habeas corpus proceeding, an escapee from prison in the State of Georgia, now residing in California, challenges an extradition order returning him to Georgia to serve the remaining term of a seven-year sentence imposed in 1972 for the crime of armed robbery. 1 We conclude the writ should be denied in spite of petitioner’s assertions that extraordinary circumstances are present in this case which militate against extradition to the State of Georgia. For the reasons hereafter explained, we deny the writ of habeas corpus.

Factual and Procedural Synopsis

Before stating in detail the checkered history of the activities of the State of Georgia relating to the extradition of Timothy Walton (Walton) it is helpful to focus on the essence of Walton’s claim. Walton argues that because of his illness associated with acquired immune deficiency syndrome, commonly referred to as AIDS, a surrender to Georgia authorities *937 would cause undue stress, aggravate Ms condition, endanger Ms health, and lead to a de facto death sentence, all in violation of the constitutional proscription against cruel and unusual punishment. As a consequence, Walton urges that he should remain a…

Dissenting Opinion

Johnson, J.

“Even convicted criminals are entitled to be treated by their government in a fair and straightforward manner.” (Johnson v. Williford (9th Cir. 1982) 682 F.2d 868, 872 .)

*950 I respectfully dissent.

In this habeas corpus proceeding, a long-time California resident challenges an extradition order returning him to Georgia to serve the remaining term of a sentence for a 30-year-old crime. Unlike my colleagues, I conclude this is one of those extraordinarily rare instances where a state’s behavior in the extradition process itself—involving undue delay, earlier ignored opportunities to pursue extradition, and an express waiver—violated petitioner’s due process rights to fundamental fairness. Consequently, I would grant the writ of habeas corpus and dissolve the extradition order.

I. The Evolution of Extradition Law and Its Impact on Petitioner.

This is one of those cases where my discussion of the law requires a more thorough exposition of the facts than is found in the majority opinion. It likewise helps to briefly rehearse the history of the law of extradition in this country.

When the United States Constitution was adopted by the states, it included a specific provision…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.