In Re Satterfield

MOSK, J.

The parties agree that petitioner should be transferred to a Florida penal institution in order to serve his California sentence concurrently with a prior Florida sentence. The only question to be decided in this proceeding is whether the transfer may be conditioned upon defendant’s advance waiver of extradition in the event California seeks his return at the time of his release in Florida. Under authority of

In re Patterson, ante,

p. 357 [49 Cal.Rptr. 801, 411 P.2d 897], we conclude that such a condition may not be imposed.

In January 1959 petitioner was convicted of forgery in Florida. He was released on parole in April 1963 and subsequently came to California. In December 1964 he was convicted of forgery in the San Francisco superior court. The judgment specified that the sentence was to be served concurrently with any prior incompleted sentences. Before the entry of this judgment, the State of Florida had revoked peti

[421]

tioner’s parole and had issued a warrant for his arrest.

The People concede that petitioner should be transferred to Florida so that he may serve his California and Florida sentences concurrently. (Pen. Code, § 669;

In re Stoliker

(1957) 49 Cal.2d 75 [315 P.2d 12].) However, they request this court to require that prior to his transfer he execute a waiver of any rights which ha would otherwise have to extradition proceedings in the event his California sentence is not fully satisfied at the time of his release in Florida and California therefore requests his return. It is suggested that unless such a waiver is executed by petitioner, California will be unable to secure petitioner’s return at that time since the transfer to Florida will be deemed a waiver by this state of further jurisdiction over him.

In re Whittington

(1917) 34 Cal.App. 344 [167 P. 404], held that a state which transfers a prisoner to the custody of another sovereign impliedly waives further jurisdiction over him.