U.S. v. OVANDO, 2:13-CR-474 TS. (2013)
Court: District Court, D. Utah
Number: infdco20130809694
Visitors: 11
Filed: Aug. 07, 2013
Latest Update: Aug. 07, 2013
Summary: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AD PROSEQUENDUM TED STEWART, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on Salt Lake City's Ex Parte Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Prosequendum. 1 Salt Lake City requests that this Court issue a writ making Defendant Miguel Angel Ovando available to appear before the Salt Lake County Justice Court on August 27, 2013, at 1:30 p.m. Salt Lake City indicates that the Government has agreed to Defendant's appearan
Summary: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AD PROSEQUENDUM TED STEWART, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on Salt Lake City's Ex Parte Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Prosequendum. 1 Salt Lake City requests that this Court issue a writ making Defendant Miguel Angel Ovando available to appear before the Salt Lake County Justice Court on August 27, 2013, at 1:30 p.m. Salt Lake City indicates that the Government has agreed to Defendant's appearanc..
More
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AD PROSEQUENDUM
TED STEWART, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on Salt Lake City's Ex Parte Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Prosequendum.1 Salt Lake City requests that this Court issue a writ making Defendant Miguel Angel Ovando available to appear before the Salt Lake County Justice Court on August 27, 2013, at 1:30 p.m. Salt Lake City indicates that the Government has agreed to Defendant's appearance before the Salt Lake County Justice Court.
"28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(5) authorizes a United States District Court to issue a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum to produce a defendant for trial."2 "The traditional use of the writ has been to bring a defendant in the custody of another sovereign to trial before the court issuing the writ."3 For this reason, the Tenth Circuit has held that "[i]f a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum is to be used to bring [a defendant] to trial in a . . . state court, the writ must issue from that court."4 Based on this precedent, the Court will deny Salt Lake City's ex parte Petition.
It is therefore
ORDERED that Salt Lake City's Ex Parte Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Prosequendum (Docket No. 9) is DENIED.
FootNotes
1. Docket No. 9.
2. Huston v. State of Kan., 390 F.2d 156, 157 (10th Cir. 1968) (citing Carbo v. United States, 364 U.S. 611, 612-616 (1961)).
3. Lawrence v. Willingham, 373 F.2d 731 (10th Cir. 1967) (citing Lunsford v. Hudspeth, 126 F.2d 653 (10th Cir. 1942); Moses v. Kipp, 232 F.2d 147 (7th Cir. 1956)).
4. Id.; see also Huston, 390 F. 3d at 157; Trigg v. Moseley, 433 F.2d 364, 367 (10th Cir. 1970).
Source: Leagle
