Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

565 S.W.2d 653

Ostrander v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided January 31, 1978

Missouri Court of Appeals · decided 1978-01-31

Relies on Huffman v. State · Watson v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1978-01-31

How this case has been cited

Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently July 2013 · most notably Ford v. Bi-State Development Agency (1984), Blissenbach v. General Motors Assembly Division (1983)

26 state decisions

14019781980199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

CLEMENS, Presiding Judge.

¶1By a Rule 27.26 motion movant Val Dean Ostrander has challenged the 25-year sentence imposed after a jury trial on a charge of felonious assault. After trial but before being sentenced movant fled to South Carolina. He was returned to Missouri by extradition and sentence and imprisonment followed. He did not appeal.

¶2Movant challenges his extradition under Agreement on Detainers, § 222.160, RSMo. He contends its purpose is to expedite untried charges, and that when extradited he had already been tried even though not yet sentenced. We need not resolve that issue.

¶3In Watson v. State, 475 S.W.2d 8 [3, 4] (Mo.1972), the court held: “In a proceeding under S.Ct. Rule 27.26, we do not inquire into, the validity of extradition proceedings under which a defendant has been returned to this jurisdiction.” And, in Huffman v. State, 487 S.W.2d 549[1] (Mo.1972), the court ruled that “once the accused has been brought within the custody of the demanding state, the legality of the extradition is no longer a proper subject of any legal attack by him.” So it is here.

¶4Judgment affirmed.

SMITH and McMILLIAN, JJ., concur.
/565/sw2d/653 · .json · Public domain