## Facts

- Charles Calvin Robinson was convicted of burglary in Oregon and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment.
- After serving about two years, Oregon paroled him and released him to Nebraska authorities for prosecution on a Nebraska offense.
- Robinson was convicted in Nebraska, served a 20-month sentence, and was released while a substantial portion of his Oregon sentence remained unserved.
- Oregon later revoked Robinson’s parole without his knowledge.
- Robinson went to Nevada, and Oregon sought his return as a fugitive.
- Nevada’s governor issued an executive warrant honoring Oregon’s requisition, and Robinson was arrested in Clark County, Nevada.
- Robinson petitioned for habeas corpus in Nevada challenging his custody and extradition.
- The district court denied relief and, instead of remanding him to the Nevada sheriff, ordered him remanded directly to Oregon officers present in court; Oregon officers immediately removed him from Nevada.
- Robinson appealed; the State moved to dismiss as moot because he was no longer in the sheriff’s custody.

## Issues

1. Whether the habeas appeal became moot when Robinson was transferred to Oregon officers and removed from Nevada pursuant to the district court’s order.
2. Whether Oregon’s release of Robinson to Nebraska for prosecution waived or abandoned Oregon’s right to require completion of the unserved portion of his Oregon sentence.
3. Whether Robinson could be treated as a “fugitive from justice” for extradition purposes when his initial departure from Oregon occurred under legal compulsion.

## Decision

- The Nevada Supreme Court denied the State’s motion to dismiss and reached the merits.
- The court held the appeal was not moot solely because Robinson had been delivered to Oregon under the challenged order.
- The court affirmed the denial of habeas corpus and upheld extradition to Oregon.
- The court rejected Robinson’s claim that Oregon waived the remaining sentence by surrendering him to Nebraska.
- The court held Robinson could be deemed a fugitive from justice despite his compelled departure from Oregon.

## Legal Principles

- A statutory right to appellate review of a habeas denial is not extinguished merely because custody changes or the petitioner is transferred pursuant to the order being appealed.
- A state’s temporary surrender of a prisoner to another jurisdiction for prosecution does not, without a clear showing of intentional relinquishment, waive the surrendering state’s authority to retake the person to complete an unserved sentence.
- For extradition, “fugitive from justice” status does not require voluntary flight; it is sufficient that the person is outside the demanding state while still subject to an unfulfilled criminal judgment or charge there.

## Conclusion

Nevada’s Supreme Court preserved appellate review of a habeas denial despite the petitioner’s immediate transfer to the demanding state and held that interstate surrender for prosecution neither waives the original sentence nor prevents extradition on the ground that the petitioner’s departure from the demanding state was compelled.


Application of Robinson, 322 P.2d 304 (Nev. 1958)