The Fourth Appellate District granted a petition for writ of mandate. The court held that an extradition order for an Arizona probationer needed to comply with the Interstate Compact for Adult Offender Supervision (ICAOS).
Guadalupe Ramirez pleaded guilty in Arizona state court to three felony sex offenses involving minors. The Arizona court sentenced him to 10 years in prison, to be followed by lifetime probation. Following his release from prison, Ramirez applied to transfer his probation to California under the ICAOS. While living in California, Ramirez allegedly violated the terms of his probation. The Arizona court issued a warrant for his arrest. The Imperial County Sheriff’s Office filed a fugitive complaint against Ramirez, seeking his extradition under California’s extradition statutes. Ramirez was arrested and arraigned on the complaint. At hearing, defense counsel expressed doubt about Ramirez’s mental competency. He was evaluated and diagnosed with schizophrenia. The court declined to order a hearing, finding that Penal Code §1368 did not apply. After hearing evidence, the trial court made a finding of identity and ordered Ramirez’s extradition to Arizona.
Ramirez petitioned for a writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate its extradition order and place him in an appropriate mental health facility until he can be restored to competency.
The court of appeal granted the petition, holding that the trial court’s extradition order had to be vacated. At issue, however, was not the trial court’s failure to order a competency hearing, but its failure to comply with ICAOS rules in ordering extradition. Because Arizona requested extradition based on probation violations that occurred in California, not based on any new crimes committed in Arizona, and made its request under the ICAOS, Ramirez’s return to Arizona was governed by ICAOS rules, and not California’s extradition statutes. Under California’s extradition statutes, the sole requirement for compliance with Arizona’s extradition request was a finding of identity. Under ICAOS rules, in contrast, a probable cause hearing was required. Because the proceedings below did not comply with ICAOS rules governing probable cause hearings, the trial court erred by ordering Ramirez’s extradition. Further, because the probable cause hearing would be an extension of Ramirez’s criminal case in Arizona, and would in effect be part of his probation revocation proceedings, California’s criminal competency statutes would apply. The trial court was accordingly required to proceed in accordance with those statutes on remand.