Appeal, No. 69, Jan. T., 1963, from order of Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, Sept. T., 1962, No. 147, in case of Commonwealth ex rel. George L. Aronson v. W. Alrich Price, Sheriff of Delaware County. Order reversed.
Guy G. deFuria, with him Arthur Levy, and McClenachan, Blumberg & Levy, and deFuria, Larkin and deFuria, for appellant.
Domenic D. Jerome, Assistant District Attorney, with him Jacques H. Fox, District Attorney, for appellee.
Before Musmanno, Jones, Cohen, Eagen and O'brien, JJ.
OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE COHEN
This is an appeal from the denial of relator's petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the validity of the extradition proceedings instituted against him under section 6 of the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act. We hold that the court below erred in refusing to grant the writ.
Section 6 of the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act empowers the governor of Pennsylvania to surrender upon the demand of the executive authority of another state one found in Pennsylvania who is charged with "committing an act in this State ... intentionally resulting in a crime in the state whose executive authority is making the demand ... even though the accused was not in that state at the time of the commission of the crime and has not fled therefrom."*fn1 In the instant
case, the governor's warrant alleges that relator, George Aronson, committed acts in Pennsylvania which resulted in the crime of theft in Wisconsin, the theft consisting of obtaining goods by virtue of a fraudulent promise to pay for them.
Although the courts of the surrendering state possess only a limited scope of review over an extradition procedure, there is an obligation to make certain that the requirements of the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act have been satisfied before permitting one to be surrendered to the executive authority of the demanding state. Commonwealth ex rel. Thomas v. Superintendent, Philadelphia County Prison, 372 Pa. 595, 94 A.2d 732 (1953); Commonwealth ex rel. Spivak v. Heinz, 141 Pa. Superior Ct. 158, 14 A.2d 875 (1940). An examination of the record in the instant case discloses that this has not been done.
Section 7 of the Act provides that the governor's warrant "must substantially recite the facts necessary to the validity of its issuance."*fn2 (Emphasis supplied.) The present proceeding under section 6 of the Act is predicated on the theory that (1) acts were committed in Pennsylvania and (2) that said acts resulted in the crime of theft in Wisconsin. The warrant and accompanying requisition papers,*fn3 however, fail to set forth facts to support these two prerequisites. Most of the papers merely repeat the language of section 6. Appellee, in an attempt to meet this objection, relies upon the following language contained in the affidavit of ...