Case Title: In Re Graziani

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1991-03-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under V.R.A.P. 40
as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont Reports.
Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Vermont Supreme
Court, 111 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05602 of any errors in order
that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.


                                No. 91-024


In re Paul B. Graziani                       Supreme Court

                                             On Appeal from
                                             Chittenden Superior Court

                                             March Term, 1991


Frank G. Mahady, J.

E.M. Allen, Defender General, and William A. Nelson, Appellate Attorney,
  Montpelier, for petitioner-appellant

Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Attorney General, and David Tartter, Assistant Attorney
  General, Montpelier, for respondent-appellee


PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.


     DOOLEY, J.   Petitioner Paul Graziani appeals from the superior court's
denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus.  We affirm.
     On the evening of May 29, 1990, a bomb exploded on the front porch of a
residence in Torrington, Connecticut.  Following an investigation by the
Torrington Police Department, the State of Connecticut charged petitioner
with arson, manufacture of a bomb, reckless endangerment, possession of a
sawed-off shot gun, and violation of probation.  On August 16, 1990, the
Governor of Connecticut requested extradition of petitioner from Vermont.
     The requisition warrant was accompanied by the following documents:
(1) an "Information," dated June 22, 1990, charging petitioner with arson,
manufacture of a bomb, and reckless endangerment; (2) an "Application for
Arrest Warrant," signed by an Assistant State's Attorney and dated June 22,
1990, including a six-page affidavit signed and sworn to by a Torrington
police officer before a police sergeant, who apparently is also a notary;
(3) a "Finding," pre-printed on the arrest warrant application and signed by
a Superior Court judge, stating that "there is probable cause to believe
that an offense has been committed and that the accused committed it and,
therefore, that probable cause exists for the issuance of a warrant for the
arrest of the above-named accused"; (4) an arrest warrant, signed by a
Superior Court judge and dated June 22, 1990; (5) an "Information," dated
June 29, 1990, charging petitioner with possession of a sawed-off shotgun;
(6) a form entitled "Application for Arrest Warrant," signed by a Deputy
Assistant State's Attorney and dated June 22, 1990, including a three-page
affidavit, signed and sworn to by a Torrington Police Department sergeant
before a police lieutenant, who apparently is a notary; (7) a "Finding,"
pre-printed on the application described in (6) and signed by a Superior
Court judge, stating that "probable cause exists for the issuance of a
warrant for the arrest of the above named accused"; and (8) an arrest
warrant, signed by a Superior Court judge and dated June 29, 1990.  On
September 13th, the Governor of Vermont issued a warrant for the arrest of
petitioner, who was subsequently apprehended.  Petitioner brought this
habeas corpus petition to prevent his extradition.
     Petitioner complained that the documents filed in support of
Connecticut's extradition demand failed to comply with Vermont's
codification of the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, 13 V.S.A. {{ 4941 -
4969.  According to petitioner, the extradition demand was defective because
the accompanying affidavits were sworn to before a police officer, rather
than "before a magistrate," as required by { 4943.   The trial court
concluded that, taken as a whole, the materials accompanying the warrant
-- an "affidavit notarized by a police officer, a finding of probable cause
by a judicial officer and a warrant" -- satisfied the requirements of the
Act.  On appeal, petitioner claims that the trial court erred in ruling that
the documents satisfied the requirement of an "affidavit made before a
magistrate."  The State advances an alternative ground for affirmance under
{ 4943, that the requisition warrant included "an information supported by
affidavit."
     We have emphasized that review in this Court is limited to "the
validity of the demanding warrant and the procedural compliance with the
requirements for rendition.  If those are in order, we look no further in
this proceeding."  In re Everett, 139 Vt. 317, 319,