The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by South Carolina, governs the process of extraditing individuals accused or convicted of crimes across state lines. South Carolina Code Annotated Section 17-13-10 provides the legal framework. When a person is charged with a crime in one state and flees to another, the governor of the demanding state can issue a formal demand for the fugitive’s return. This demand must be accompanied by a copy of the indictment, information, or complaint, and a warrant for the fugitive’s arrest, all certified as authentic by the executive authority of the demanding state. The accused then has the right to challenge the legality of their detention through a writ of habeas corpus. During such proceedings, the focus is on whether the person is the identical individual named in the rendition warrant, whether they are substantially charged with a crime in the demanding state, and whether they have fled from justice. The governor of the asylum state has discretion in deciding whether to honor the extradition request, but this discretion is generally limited by the UCEA’s provisions, which aim to facilitate interstate rendition. The question tests the understanding of the foundational requirements for a valid extradition demand under South Carolina law, specifically focusing on the documentation that must accompany the demand. The correct documentation includes a formal demand, an indictment or information, and a warrant, all certified by the demanding state’s executive authority.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by South Carolina and codified in South Carolina Code Section 17-13-10 et seq., governs the process of extraditing individuals accused or convicted of crimes across state lines. A crucial aspect of this process is the demand for extradition from the demanding state. For a valid demand, the UCEA, and by extension South Carolina law, requires that the accompanying documents meet specific criteria. These documents must include an indictment found, or an information supported by a complaint on oath before a magistrate, or an affidavit made before a magistrate charging the accused with the commission of a crime. Furthermore, the demanding state’s executive authority must certify that the accused was present in the demanding state at the time of the commission of the alleged crime and that the accused has fled from justice. This certification is a critical step to ensure that the extradition request is based on a legitimate accusation and that the individual is indeed a fugitive from the demanding state’s justice. Without proper certification by the demanding state’s governor, the extradition request is legally insufficient. The role of the South Carolina governor is to review the demand and supporting documents for compliance with the UCEA and to issue a warrant for the arrest of the accused if the demand is found to be in order. The question focuses on the deficiency in the supporting documentation, specifically the absence of the governor’s certification.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by South Carolina under S.C. Code Ann. § 17-13-10 et seq., governs the process of interstate rendition. A crucial aspect is the demand for extradition. When a person is sought for a crime committed in a demanding state, that state must present specific documentation to the asylum state’s governor. This documentation, as outlined in S.C. Code Ann. § 17-13-30, must include an affidavit, or an indictment, or an information, accompanied by a judgment of conviction or a sentence. The affidavit or indictment must substantially charge the person with having committed a crime under the law of the demanding state. Furthermore, the demanding state must present a copy of the indictment found, or an information supported by proof, or a complaint made before a magistrate, charging the person with the commission of the crime. The person sought must also be charged with having escaped from confinement or having broken the terms of bail, probation, or parole. Crucially, the application must be accompanied by a copy of the indictment, information, or affidavit made before a magistrate, charging the person with the commission of the crime, and a copy of any judgment of conviction or sentence, or of any judicial finding of guilt, or of any arrest warrant issued. The law requires that the person be substantially charged with a crime. The absence of a sworn affidavit or an indictment, or a judicial finding of guilt, would render the demand insufficient.

South Carolina’s Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, codified in Chapter 19 of Title 17 of the South Carolina Code of Laws, outlines the procedures for interstate rendition. A critical aspect of this act involves the governor’s role in issuing warrants and the process for challenging extradition. Specifically, Section 17-19-210 addresses the arrest of a person charged with a crime in another state, allowing for their detention upon complaint under oath showing probable cause. Section 17-19-230 then details the procedure for bringing the arrested person before a judge or magistrate. The fugitive has the right to demand and procure a copy of the complaint, warrant, and any affidavits upon which the arrest was based. They also have the right to counsel and to test the legality of their arrest through a writ of habeas corpus. The governor of South Carolina, upon receiving a proper demand from the executive authority of another state accompanied by a copy of the indictment, information, affidavit, or judgment of conviction and sentence, or other judicial record, authenticated as required by law, must issue a warrant for the arrest of the accused. The person arrested under this warrant can then challenge the extradition by habeas corpus. The grounds for challenging extradition are limited, primarily focusing on whether the person is the one named in the rendition warrant, whether the person is a fugitive from justice in the demanding state, and whether the paperwork is in order. The South Carolina Supreme Court, in cases such as State v. Jones, has emphasized that the asylum state’s courts do not retry the charges but rather ensure the procedural requirements of extradition are met and that the person is indeed the subject of the warrant and a fugitive. Therefore, when a person is arrested in South Carolina pursuant to an extradition warrant from California, and they file a petition for habeas corpus, the focus of the South Carolina court is on the validity of the warrant and whether the petitioner is the person sought, not on the merits of the charges in California.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by South Carolina, governs the process of interstate rendition. A key provision is the requirement for a formal demand from the demanding state’s executive authority. This demand must include specific documentation, such as a copy of the indictment, information, or affidavit charging the accused with a crime, supported by an arrest warrant. Crucially, the UCEA, as implemented in South Carolina, mandates that the person sought must be substantially charged with a crime under the laws of the demanding state. This means the accusation must be legally sufficient to warrant a trial or other legal proceedings in that jurisdiction. The process is initiated by the governor of the demanding state, who issues a formal requisition to the governor of the asylum state. Upon receipt of the requisition, the governor of the asylum state reviews the documentation. If the documents are in order and the individual is indeed substantially charged, the governor issues a warrant for the arrest of the fugitive. The fugitive is then brought before a court in the asylum state, where they have the right to challenge the legality of their arrest and detention. This challenge typically involves habeas corpus proceedings, where the fugitive can argue that they are not the person named in the warrant, that the demand is not in order, or that they are not substantially charged with a crime in the demanding state. The focus of the court’s inquiry in such a proceeding is limited to these jurisdictional and procedural aspects, not the guilt or innocence of the accused. The question tests the understanding of the fundamental documentation and charging requirements for a valid extradition demand under the UCEA as applied in South Carolina. The correct answer reflects the necessity of the accused being substantially charged with a crime in the demanding state, as evidenced by the accompanying legal documents.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by South Carolina under S.C. Code Ann. § 17-13-10 et seq., governs the process of returning fugitives from justice to the demanding state. A critical aspect of this process involves the documentation required by the demanding state to initiate extradition proceedings. For a person arrested on an extradition warrant in the asylum state (South Carolina, in this scenario), the UCEA, as codified in South Carolina law, mandates that the demanding state must provide specific supporting documents to justify the arrest and subsequent extradition. These documents typically include a copy of the indictment, an information supported by affidavit, or a complaint made before a magistrate, all of which must substantially charge the person with a crime under the laws of the demanding state. Crucially, the demanding state’s application must also include a copy of the warrant issued by a judge or magistrate of the demanding state, charging the fugitive with the commission of the crime. Furthermore, the application must be accompanied by a copy of the judgment of conviction or sentence, or for a person who has escaped from confinement or broken probation or parole, a copy of the indictment, information, or affidavit upon which the escape or violation is based. The law requires these documents to be authenticated by the executive authority of the demanding state. Without these authenticated documents, the asylum state’s governor cannot lawfully issue an extradition warrant, and the arrested individual may be discharged. The question hinges on identifying which of the listed documents is *not* a mandatory requirement for the demanding state to present to South Carolina’s governor to support an extradition request for a person charged with a crime but not yet convicted.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by South Carolina, outlines the procedural requirements for interstate rendition. South Carolina Code Annotated Section 17-13-10 et seq. governs extradition. A crucial aspect is the demand from the demanding state. For a valid demand, the demanding state must present an affidavit made before a magistrate charging the accused with a crime. This affidavit must be accompanied by a copy of the indictment found or by information supported by affidavit. The indictment or information, along with the affidavit, must substantially charge the person with having committed a crime under the laws of the demanding state. The UCEA also requires that the person be found in the asylum state. The governor of the asylum state, in this case South Carolina, must issue a warrant for the apprehension of the person. This warrant must be based on the proper documentation from the demanding state. If the person is arrested on a fugitive warrant, they have the right to demand and procure a copy of the warrant and all accompanying papers. They also have the right to apply for a writ of habeas corpus, challenging the legality of their detention. The South Carolina Supreme Court has consistently held that the demanding state’s documentation must meet the statutory requirements for the extradition process to be valid. Failure to provide an affidavit made before a magistrate, or an indictment or information properly supported, renders the demand legally insufficient. The core principle is ensuring that the person is formally charged with a crime in the demanding state and that the process is followed to prevent arbitrary detention.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by South Carolina under S.C. Code Ann. § 17-13-10 et seq., outlines the procedures for interstate rendition. A key provision concerns the demand for extradition, which must be accompanied by a copy of the indictment found or an affidavit made before a magistrate, substantially charging the accused with a crime. This demand must also be accompanied by a copy of the judgment of conviction or sentence. In the scenario presented, the Governor of California transmits a demand to the Governor of South Carolina. The accompanying documents include an indictment and an affidavit. Crucially, South Carolina law, consistent with the UCEA, requires that the demand be accompanied by a copy of the indictment *or* an affidavit, and if the accused has been convicted, a copy of the judgment of conviction or sentence. The absence of a judgment of conviction or sentence when the demand is based on a conviction, as implied by the mention of a “convicted fugitive” and the transmission of a “sentence,” renders the demand formally insufficient under South Carolina’s statutory framework for extradition. The requirement for a judgment of conviction or sentence is a procedural safeguard ensuring that the individual is indeed subject to correctional supervision or has completed their sentence, and that the conviction is a matter of record in the demanding state. Therefore, the Governor of South Carolina would be justified in refusing to issue the arrest warrant.

South Carolina’s Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, codified in Chapter 17-13 of the South Carolina Code of Laws, governs the process of interstate rendition. A crucial aspect of this act pertains to the authority of the Governor to issue warrants for the arrest of fugitives from justice. Specifically, Section 17-13-80 outlines the requirements for an application for a requisition for the return of a person charged with a crime. This section mandates that the application must be accompanied by a copy of the indictment found, or information, or a complaint made before a magistrate, authenticated by the oath of the accusing magistrate, and that the application must also include a copy of the warrant issued thereon. Furthermore, it requires an affidavit or a sworn statement from the prosecuting attorney of the demanding state, attesting to the fact that the person whose rendition is sought is a fugitive from justice and that the prosecution has not been barred by any statute of limitations. The Governor of South Carolina, upon receiving such an application, must be satisfied that the person sought is substantially charged with a crime in another state and that the application conforms to the statutory requirements. The act does not require a separate judicial determination of probable cause by a South Carolina court prior to the Governor’s issuance of the rendition warrant, as the probable cause determination is presumed to have been made by the demanding state’s judicial or executive authority when issuing the initial warrant or charging document. The focus is on the executive authority’s review of the submitted documentation for compliance with the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by South Carolina and codified in South Carolina Code Section 17-13-10, governs the process of extraditing individuals accused or convicted of crimes from one state to another. A crucial aspect of this act is the requirement for a formal demand from the executive authority of the demanding state, accompanied by specific documentation. South Carolina Code Section 17-13-30 outlines these requirements, stipulating that the demand must be accompanied by a copy of the indictment, information, or complaint, and a judgment of conviction or sentence. Furthermore, the act requires that the indictment, information, or complaint be accompanied by an affidavit made before a magistrate or judicial officer of the demanding state, charging the accused with the commission of the crime. The presence of a warrant issued by a magistrate or judicial officer of the demanding state, which is also to be presented to the executive authority of the asylum state, is a key component. The core of the legal justification for extradition rests on the accusation of a crime having been committed in the demanding state, as evidenced by the charging documents. Therefore, if the accompanying documents fail to demonstrate that the alleged crime occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of the demanding state, the extradition request may be challenged. The question tests the understanding of the foundational documentation required for a valid extradition request under South Carolina law, specifically focusing on the necessity of proving the commission of the crime within the demanding state’s jurisdiction.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by South Carolina under S.C. Code Ann. § 17-13-10 et seq., governs the process of extraditing individuals accused or convicted of crimes between states. A crucial aspect of this act concerns the role of the governor in issuing warrants and the requirements for the demanding state’s documentation. Specifically, S.C. Code Ann. § 17-13-30 mandates that the application for extradition must be accompanied by a copy of the indictment found or by an information supported by affidavit. This information must charge the person with a crime. Furthermore, the application must include a copy of the judgment of conviction or sentence, if the person has been convicted and has escaped or fled from justice. The demanding state’s governor must also certify that the person is a fugitive from justice. South Carolina law, in line with the UCEA, emphasizes the procedural safeguards for the accused, including the right to challenge the extradition through a writ of habeas corpus, but the initial burden is on the demanding state to present the proper documentation. The governor of South Carolina reviews this documentation to ensure compliance with the UCEA and federal law before issuing a rendition warrant.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by South Carolina under S.C. Code Ann. § 17-13-10 et seq., outlines the procedures for interstate rendition of fugitives. A key aspect involves the governor’s role in issuing warrants and the accused’s right to challenge the legality of their detention. When a person is arrested in South Carolina on a warrant issued by the governor of another state, the accused must be brought before a judge of the court of record with general jurisdiction in South Carolina. This judge is tasked with determining if the person is the one named in the extradition warrant and if they are substantially charged with a crime in the demanding state. The scope of this inquiry is deliberately narrow. The court does not delve into the guilt or innocence of the accused, nor does it review the merits of the charges in the demanding state. Instead, the focus is solely on whether the formal requirements of extradition have been met, including proof of identity and the existence of a valid charge in the demanding jurisdiction, as evidenced by the accompanying documents. If the judge finds these prerequisites are met, the individual is committed to custody to await the arrival of the agent from the demanding state. The accused can then pursue further legal remedies, such as a writ of habeas corpus, to challenge the extradition on more substantive grounds, but the initial judicial review is limited to these procedural and jurisdictional aspects.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by South Carolina, outlines the procedural requirements for interstate rendition of fugitives. A key aspect is the governor’s role in issuing a warrant for the arrest of a person charged with a crime in another state. South Carolina Code of Laws Section 17-13-10 states that when a written demand for the surrender of a person charged with a crime in another state, supported by affidavits, information, or indictment and a copy of the judgment of conviction or sentence, is presented to the governor of South Carolina, the governor may issue a warrant for the arrest of the accused. This warrant must substantially charge the person with a crime under the laws of the demanding state. The demanding state must also provide assurance that the person sought is indeed the one charged with the offense. The UCEA emphasizes due process, allowing the accused to challenge the legality of the arrest and detention through a writ of habeas corpus. However, the scope of this review is limited to verifying that the person is substantially charged with a crime, that the person is a fugitive from justice, and that the extradition documents are in order. It does not permit a review of the merits of the underlying criminal case. The governor’s discretion in issuing the warrant is primarily ministerial, based on the sufficiency of the demanding state’s documentation.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by South Carolina, outlines the procedures for interstate rendition. South Carolina Code Annotated Section 17-13-10 et seq. governs this process. A crucial aspect of extradition is the demand from the demanding state, which must be accompanied by a copy of the indictment found or an information supported by affidavit, or by a judgment of conviction or a sentence. The demanding state’s governor must also issue a formal written demand, accompanied by the accusatory instrument and a statement of the facts showing the person sought committed a crime in the demanding state. Crucially, the person sought must be substantially charged with a crime in the demanding state. This means the indictment or information must meet the legal standards of the demanding state for charging a criminal offense, and the facts presented must sufficiently allege the commission of that crime by the individual sought. The role of the South Carolina governor is to review the demand for facial validity and compliance with statutory requirements. The governor is not to adjudicate guilt or innocence but rather to determine if the demand is in order and if the person is substantially charged. If the demand is found to be legally sufficient, the governor will issue a warrant for the arrest of the person. The person arrested then has the right to challenge their detention through a writ of habeas corpus, where the court will examine the legality of the arrest and the validity of the extradition proceedings. The core legal question in such a challenge is whether the person is substantially charged with a crime in the demanding state, as evidenced by the accompanying documentation.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by South Carolina under S.C. Code Ann. § 17-13-10 et seq., governs the process of extraditing individuals accused or convicted of crimes across state lines. A key procedural safeguard within this act is the requirement for a formal demand from the executive authority of the demanding state, accompanied by a copy of the indictment, information, affidavit, or judgment of conviction, certified as authentic by the executive authority. This demand must be presented to the governor of the asylum state. Upon receipt, the governor of the asylum state must review the demand and supporting documents to ensure they meet the statutory requirements. If the documents are in order and the person is indeed sought for a crime committed in the demanding state, the governor will issue a warrant for the arrest of the fugitive. This warrant is then delivered to a law enforcement officer for execution. The arrested individual has the right to challenge the legality of their detention through a writ of habeas corpus, as provided for in S.C. Code Ann. § 17-13-60. This habeas corpus proceeding allows the fugitive to question whether they are the person named in the warrant, whether they were in the demanding state when the crime was committed, or if the extradition documents are legally sufficient. The governor’s decision to issue the warrant is a discretionary act, but it must be based on the proper documentation and the belief that a crime was committed. The specific charge must be supported by a formal accusation, such as an indictment or a sworn affidavit alleging facts sufficient to establish probable cause. Simply alleging a crime occurred is insufficient; the documentation must demonstrate the legal basis for the demand.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by South Carolina, outlines the procedural requirements for interstate rendition of fugitives. South Carolina Code § 17-13-10 et seq. governs extradition. A critical aspect is the demand for extradition, which must be accompanied by specific documentation. According to § 17-13-30, the demanding state’s executive authority must present a copy of the indictment found or an information supported by evidence under oath, or a judgment of conviction or sentence. Furthermore, the documents must include a statement by the executive authority that the person sought has fled from justice and is a fugitive from justice, and that the copy of the indictment, information, affidavit, judgment, or sentence is authentic. The law also requires that the person sought be named in the warrant of arrest. In this scenario, the Governor of California’s demand lacks a sworn affidavit or equivalent supporting documentation for the alleged felony committed in California, beyond the indictment itself. While an indictment is a necessary component, the UCEA, as implemented in South Carolina, often requires additional supporting evidence to demonstrate probable cause for the arrest, especially when the information is solely based on an indictment from a distant jurisdiction without further corroboration presented to the South Carolina governor. The absence of a sworn statement or affidavit attesting to the fugitive status and the authenticity of the documents beyond the indictment itself creates a procedural deficiency. Therefore, the South Carolina Governor’s office would likely request the missing sworn documentation to ensure compliance with the UCEA’s requirements before issuing a rendition warrant.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by South Carolina under S.C. Code Ann. § 17-13-10 et seq., governs the process of interstate rendition. A key aspect of this act pertains to the demand for extradition. For a demand to be legally sufficient, it must meet several statutory requirements. South Carolina law, mirroring the UCEA, requires that the demand be accompanied by a copy of the indictment found in the demanding state, or by an affidavit made before a magistrate there, charging the accused with a crime. This charging document must substantially charge the person demanded with having committed a crime in the demanding state. Furthermore, the demand must include a copy of the judgment of conviction or sentence, if the person has been convicted and sentenced. Crucially, the demand must also include a statement by the executive authority of the demanding state that the person has fled from justice and is found in the state of South Carolina. The statute also mandates that the copy of the indictment or affidavit must be authenticated by the executive authority of the demanding state. Therefore, when reviewing a demand for extradition, the South Carolina governor must ensure all these components are present and properly authenticated to avoid unlawful detention or rendition. The absence of any of these elements, particularly the authenticated charging document and the executive authority’s certification of flight, would render the demand legally deficient.

South Carolina’s Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, codified in Chapter 19 of Title 17 of the South Carolina Code of Laws, governs the process of interstate rendition. When a person is charged with a crime in one state and flees to another, the demanding state can seek their return. The process requires the executive authority of the demanding state to issue a formal demand, which must include a copy of the indictment, information, or affidavit charging the accused, along with a judgment of conviction or sentence. This demand must also certify that the accused was present in the demanding state at the time of the commission of the alleged crime. The governor of the asylum state then reviews this demand. If the demand is in order and the person is indeed the one sought, the governor may issue a warrant for the arrest of the fugitive. The arrested individual has the right to challenge the legality of their detention through a writ of habeas corpus, as provided by Section 17-19-110 of the South Carolina Code. This habeas corpus proceeding allows the court to determine if the person is lawfully subject to extradition, focusing on whether the demanding state has met the statutory requirements and if the person is the identical individual named in the rendition warrant. The scope of inquiry in a habeas corpus proceeding concerning extradition is generally limited to whether the documents conform to the requirements of the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act and whether the person is the fugitive charged. It does not extend to an inquiry into guilt or innocence. Therefore, if the South Carolina governor has issued a rendition warrant based on a proper demand from Georgia, and the arrested individual files a habeas corpus petition, the court’s primary focus will be on the regularity of the extradition process and the identity of the fugitive, not on the merits of the underlying criminal charges in Georgia.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by South Carolina, governs the process of interstate rendition. A key provision, South Carolina Code Section 17-13-10, outlines the requirements for an arrest warrant issued by a demanding state’s executive authority. For an individual to be lawfully arrested in South Carolina on a governor’s warrant from another state, the demanding state’s warrant must be accompanied by an affidavit made before a magistrate or other judicial officer of that demanding state, establishing probable cause for the alleged crime. This affidavit is crucial for the South Carolina governor to determine if the person is substantially charged with a crime in the demanding state. The law further specifies that the indictment or information accompanying the warrant must also be authenticated by the executive authority of the demanding state. Therefore, the absence of a sworn affidavit before a magistrate in the demanding state, even if an arrest warrant exists, renders the basis for the South Carolina governor’s warrant procedurally deficient under the UCEA as adopted in South Carolina, making the arrest unlawful.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by South Carolina under S.C. Code Ann. § 17-13-10 et seq., governs the process of interstate rendition. A crucial aspect of this act involves the governor’s role and the documentation required for an extradition request. When a person is charged with a crime in one state and flees to another, the demanding state’s governor must issue a formal written demand to the asylum state’s governor. This demand must be accompanied by specific authenticated documents. According to S.C. Code Ann. § 17-13-30, the demand must be accompanied by a copy of the indictment found in the demanding state, or by an information supported by an affidavit, or by a complaint made before a magistrate, supported by an affidavit. Crucially, these documents must be authenticated by the executive authority of the demanding state. The question focuses on the evidentiary standard for the underlying charge. The law requires that the accusation be substantially charged, meaning there must be sufficient evidence to establish probable cause that a crime was committed and that the accused committed it. This is not a burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt at this stage, but rather a showing that the accusation is not frivolous or baseless. The governor of the asylum state must then determine if the person is substantially charged with a crime and if they are the person named in the extradition request. The presence of a sworn affidavit attesting to the factual basis of the alleged crime is a key component of this authentication process. Therefore, the absence of a sworn affidavit supporting the complaint would render the extradition request procedurally deficient under South Carolina law as implemented from the UCEA.

South Carolina’s extradition process is governed by the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, codified in Chapter 7 of Title 17 of the South Carolina Code of Laws. This act outlines the procedures for demanding and surrendering persons charged with crimes in other states. A key aspect is the role of the Governor. When a demand for extradition is made by the executive authority of another state, the Governor of South Carolina must review the accompanying documents. These documents typically include an indictment, an information, or a sworn affidavit charging the person with a crime, along with a copy of the warrant issued by a judicial officer of the demanding state. The Governor’s duty is to determine if the person sought is substantially charged with a crime in the demanding state and if the person is a fugitive from justice. If these conditions are met, the Governor issues a warrant for the arrest of the fugitive. The arrested person has the right to challenge the legality of their detention through a writ of habeas corpus. During such proceedings, the court will examine whether the person is properly charged, whether they are the person named in the warrant, and whether they are a fugitive. The focus is on the regularity of the proceedings and the substantiality of the charge, not on the guilt or innocence of the accused. The law emphasizes that the person sought must be substantially charged with a crime in the demanding state, meaning there must be probable cause to believe a crime was committed and that the accused committed it. The concept of a fugitive is also critical; the individual must have been present in the demanding state when the crime was committed and subsequently departed. The South Carolina Code of Laws, specifically Section 17-7-20, details the requirements for the demanding state’s executive authority to submit a formal demand, which must include a copy of the indictment, information, or affidavit, and a copy of the warrant. The Governor’s warrant of arrest is the authority for the apprehension of the individual.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by South Carolina under S.C. Code Ann. § 17-13-10 et seq., outlines the procedural framework for interstate rendition. A critical aspect of this framework involves the documentation required for a valid rendition request. Specifically, South Carolina law, mirroring the UCEA, mandates that the demanding state must provide certain authenticated documents to initiate the extradition process. These documents typically include an indictment, an information supported by a sworn affidavit, or a complaint made before a magistrate, accompanied by a copy of the warrant issued thereupon. The purpose of these authenticated documents is to establish probable cause that the accused committed the crime in the demanding state and to ensure that the individual sought is indeed the person named in the request. The Governor of South Carolina, upon receiving such a request, must be satisfied that the accused has committed an offense under the laws of the demanding state and that the accompanying papers are in order. The absence or inadequacy of these foundational documents can be grounds for denying an extradition request or challenging the legality of the rendition. The question tests the understanding of these fundamental documentary requirements for a valid extradition request under South Carolina law.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by South Carolina, governs the process of interstate rendition. A crucial aspect of this act pertains to the demand for extradition and the accompanying documentation. South Carolina Code Section 17-13-30 outlines the requirements for an extraditable offense, stating that the demanding state must provide an indictment found or an information supported by a deposition or an affidavit made before a judge of that state, charging the accused with having committed a crime in the demanding state. This indictment, information, or affidavit must substantially charge the person with having committed a crime under the law of that state. Furthermore, the demanding state must also furnish a copy of the judgment of conviction or sentence to which the person has been subjected. In this scenario, the governor of North Carolina has submitted a demand for the return of Ms. Anya Sharma, who is alleged to have absconded from justice after being convicted of embezzlement in North Carolina. The accompanying documentation includes a certified copy of the judgment of conviction and a warrant for her arrest issued by a North Carolina magistrate. However, the demand lacks an indictment, information, or affidavit that substantially charges Ms. Sharma with the commission of the crime of embezzlement under North Carolina law. The South Carolina governor’s duty, as per the UCEA and relevant case law interpreting it, is to ensure that the demand meets these statutory requirements before issuing a warrant for the arrest of the fugitive. Without proof that Ms. Sharma was charged with a crime in North Carolina through one of the statutorily prescribed methods (indictment, information, or affidavit), the demand is insufficient. Therefore, the South Carolina governor cannot issue the arrest warrant based on the provided documentation.

The scenario involves an individual, Ms. Anya Sharma, who is sought by South Carolina authorities for a parole violation. She has been apprehended in California. The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by both South Carolina and California, governs this process. South Carolina’s Governor must issue a formal demand for extradition, accompanied by a sworn statement that Ms. Sharma is substantially charged with a crime in South Carolina. This statement must be accompanied by a copy of the indictment, information, affidavit, or judgment of conviction and sentence, authenticated by the executive authority of the demanding state. The UCEA requires that the person arrested be informed of the accusation and the right to a habeas corpus hearing. California, as the asylum state, will conduct a hearing to determine if the person arrested is the one named in the warrant and if they are substantially charged with a crime in the demanding state. The core of the UCEA is reciprocity and due process. South Carolina’s role is to provide the necessary documentation and initiate the formal request. The process does not require South Carolina to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt at the asylum state’s hearing; rather, it focuses on the regularity of the process and the identity of the accused. The specific charge in South Carolina is a parole violation, which is considered a criminal offense for extradition purposes. The UCEA, codified in South Carolina in S.C. Code Ann. § 17-13-10 et seq., outlines these requirements.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by South Carolina, outlines the procedural requirements for interstate rendition. When a person is charged with a crime in one state and flees to another, the demanding state must present specific documentation to the asylum state’s governor. This documentation, as per South Carolina Code Section 17-13-10, must include an affidavit made before a magistrate or other judicial officer of the demanding state, charging the accused with a crime. Furthermore, the application must be accompanied by a copy of the indictment, information, or complaint, and a warrant issued thereupon. The UCEA also mandates that the documents must substantially charge the person with a crime under the law of the demanding state. The governor of the asylum state then reviews these documents to determine if the person is lawfully charged and has fled from justice. If these requirements are met, the governor will issue a warrant for the arrest of the fugitive. The question tests the understanding of the foundational documentation required for a valid extradition request under South Carolina’s adoption of the UCEA, focusing on the nature of the charging instrument and its accompanying affidavit. The key is that the affidavit must be made before a magistrate in the demanding state and that the documents must clearly establish a lawful charge under the demanding state’s laws.

The scenario involves a request for extradition from South Carolina to Georgia for a fugitive who has been charged with a felony. South Carolina’s extradition procedures are governed by the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, codified in South Carolina Code of Laws Section 17-13-10 et seq. Under this act, a person charged with a crime in another state may be arrested and held in South Carolina upon a proper requisition from the executive authority of the demanding state. The requisition must be accompanied by a copy of an indictment found in the demanding state or by an information supported by affidavit. The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, adopted by South Carolina, outlines the procedural safeguards for fugitives. Specifically, South Carolina Code Section 17-13-30 requires that the warrant of arrest be accompanied by a copy of the indictment or by an information and affidavit, charging the accused with a crime. Furthermore, Section 17-13-50 mandates that the person arrested shall be advised of the fact of the arrest, the nature of the charge, and the right to demand legal counsel. The governor of South Carolina issues a warrant for the arrest of the person charged, which must be accompanied by the documents from the demanding state. The fugitive then has the right to challenge the legality of the arrest and detention through a writ of habeas corpus. The grounds for challenging extradition typically include the absence of a proper charging document, lack of probable cause, or that the person is not the one named in the warrant. In this case, the fugitive has been charged with a felony in Georgia, and the governor of Georgia has issued a requisition. The South Carolina governor has issued a warrant. The critical aspect for the fugitive’s defense would be to challenge the sufficiency of the charging document presented by Georgia. If Georgia provided only a civil judgment and not a criminal indictment or information supported by affidavit, the extradition request would be procedurally deficient under South Carolina law and the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act. Therefore, the most viable legal challenge would be based on the nature of the document accompanying the requisition.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by South Carolina, outlines the procedures for interstate rendition of fugitives. A crucial aspect involves the documentation required for a governor’s warrant. South Carolina Code of Laws Section 17-13-30 specifies that the demanding governor must furnish an affidavit made before a magistrate, charging the accused with a crime. This affidavit must be accompanied by a copy of the indictment found, or an information supported by affidavit, or by a judgment of conviction or a sentence. The act emphasizes that the copy of the indictment, information, judgment, or sentence must be authenticated by the executive authority of the demanding state. In this scenario, the demanding state of Georgia has provided an authenticated copy of the indictment, which is a valid charging document under the UCEA and South Carolina law. The question hinges on whether the supporting documentation meets the statutory requirements for an extradition request. Since Georgia is a UCEA signatory state and has provided an authenticated indictment, the South Carolina governor has the authority to issue the warrant. The absence of a separate affidavit made before a magistrate in Georgia, when an authenticated indictment is already provided, does not invalidate the request, as the indictment itself serves as the charging instrument and its authenticity is attested by the demanding governor.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by South Carolina, outlines the procedures for interstate rendition of fugitives. A critical aspect of this act is the requirement for a formal demand from the demanding state’s executive authority. This demand must be accompanied by specific documentation, including a copy of the indictment found, an information supported by a complaint, or an affidavit made before a magistrate, all substantially charging the fugitive with a crime. Furthermore, the demand must include a copy of the judgment of conviction or sentence imposed, if the fugitive has been convicted and has escaped or forfeited bail. South Carolina Code Annotated Section 17-13-110 mandates that the governor of South Carolina, upon receiving such a demand, shall issue a warrant for the arrest of the person charged. The warrant is directed to any peace officer of the state and commands them to arrest the fugitive. The arrested individual is then brought before a judge of a court of record for examination. During this examination, the judge must determine if the person arrested is the person named in the warrant and if the person is charged with a crime in the demanding state. The judge must also ascertain if the person is a fugitive from justice. If the judge finds that the person is the one named in the warrant, is charged with a crime in the demanding state, and is a fugitive from justice, the judge will commit the person to jail. The person is then to be held for a period not exceeding thirty days, pending the arrival of a person authorized to receive them from the demanding state. If the person is not arrested and delivered to the demanding state within that thirty-day period, they may be discharged from custody, though this does not preclude further proceedings. The core of the legal challenge in the scenario presented by the question revolves around the sufficiency of the documentation accompanying the demand from Mississippi. Specifically, the absence of a formal indictment or a sworn affidavit before a magistrate that substantially charges the individual with a crime in Mississippi, as required by South Carolina law (drawing from UCEA principles), renders the demand legally insufficient to authorize the arrest and subsequent extradition. While a judgment of conviction from Mississippi is presented, it is not accompanied by the necessary charging instrument to initiate the extradition process for a person alleged to have committed a new offense or to have violated the terms of their probation or parole in a manner that constitutes a new criminal act. The demand, therefore, fails to meet the foundational requirements for extradition under South Carolina law.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by South Carolina, governs the process of interstate rendition. A key aspect of this act concerns the documentation required for a valid rendition request. Specifically, South Carolina Code Section 17-13-10 requires that the demanding state’s governor issue a formal written demand, accompanied by a copy of the indictment found, or an information supported by affidavit, or by a judgment of conviction or a sentence. This documentation must establish that the accused was present in the demanding state at the time of the commission of the alleged crime. The question hinges on what constitutes sufficient proof of presence. While a signed affidavit from a witness in the demanding state is a common component, the UCEA and South Carolina case law emphasize that the formal demand itself, when properly certified by the demanding governor and containing the requisite charging document, serves as the primary legal basis. The affidavit supports the information, but the indictment or information, along with the governor’s warrant, are the core legal instruments. Therefore, the absence of a supporting affidavit, if the demand is otherwise complete with a certified indictment or information and a warrant, does not automatically invalidate the rendition request. The focus is on the formal demand and the underlying legal accusation.

South Carolina’s Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, codified in Chapter 21 of Title 17 of the South Carolina Code of Laws, governs the process of interstate rendition. A critical aspect of this act involves the governor’s role and the legal standards for challenging an extradition request. When a person is arrested in South Carolina on a warrant issued by a judge of another state, the demanding state must provide specific documentation. This documentation typically includes a copy of the indictment, information, or affidavit charging the person with a crime, accompanied by a copy of the warrant issued by a judicial officer of the demanding state. Furthermore, the demanding state must demonstrate that the person sought was present in the demanding state at the time of the commission of the alleged crime. This is a fundamental constitutional requirement under Article IV, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution. In South Carolina, a person arrested on an extradition warrant may challenge their detention. The primary grounds for such a challenge typically revolve around whether the person is substantially the same individual named in the extradition documents, whether the person was in the demanding state at the time of the alleged offense, and whether the demanding state’s documents are in order and properly authenticated. The South Carolina Supreme Court has emphasized that the scope of review in habeas corpus proceedings challenging extradition is narrow. The court’s role is not to determine guilt or innocence but to ascertain if the demanding state has met the statutory and constitutional prerequisites for extradition. Consider a scenario where an individual, Ms. Anya Sharma, is arrested in Charleston, South Carolina, based on an arrest warrant issued in California. The California authorities submit a request for Ms. Sharma’s extradition. The request includes an affidavit alleging Ms. Sharma committed a theft offense in Los Angeles. Ms. Sharma, through her counsel, files a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in South Carolina, asserting she was not in California on the date of the alleged theft, and therefore, the extradition request is invalid. The South Carolina court, reviewing the petition, must determine if the demanding state has presented sufficient evidence to establish that Ms. Sharma was physically present in California when the crime was allegedly committed. If the evidence presented by California, typically through sworn affidavits or authenticated documents accompanying the extradition request, convincingly demonstrates her presence in California at the time of the offense, the extradition can proceed. Conversely, if the evidence is insufficient or contradictory regarding her presence, the writ of habeas corpus may be granted, and Ms. Sharma would be discharged from custody. The burden is on the demanding state to provide this prima facie evidence. The specific legal standard requires a showing that the accused was in the demanding state when the crime was committed.