Case Title: CRABTREE v STATE

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1980-03-09T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 14962 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1980 CHARLES L . CRABTREE, Petitioner and Respondent, VS. THE STATE OF MONTANA and MARVIN DAGEL, Sheriff, Respondents and Appellants. Appeal from: District Court of the Third Judicial District, Honorable E. Gardner Brownlee, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellants: Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Chris Tweeten, Assistant Attorney General, argued, Helena, Montana For Respondent: Richardson and Richardson, Butte, Montana William Richardson argued, Butte, Montana Submitted: January 14, 1980 Decided: MAR 1 0 1 . w M r . J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. c his i s an appeal by t h e S t a t e of Montana from an o r d e r of t h e D i s t r i c t Court, Third J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , i n and f o r G r a n i t e County, which r e l e a s e d t h e p e t i t i o n e r , Charles L. Crabtree, from custody of t h e County S h e r i f f who was holding him pursuant t o an e x t r a d i t i o n r e q u e s t from t h e S t a t e of Oregon. The i s s u e before t h i s Court i s whether t h e t r i a l judge e r r e d i n considering t h e m e r i t s of t h e Oregon charges a g a i n s t C r a b t r e e when deciding whether o r n o t he should be e x t r a d i t e d t o t h e S t a t e of Oregon. The p e t i t i o n e r and h i s wife Corrine A. Melton (Crabtree) w e r e divorced on February 27, 1970 i n t h e Clackamas County C i r c u i t Court. That c o u r t ordered p e t i t i o n e r t o pay $225 p e r month f o r t h e support of t h e p a r t i e s ' t h r e e c h i l d r e n . The w i f e had d i f f i c u l t y c o l l e c t i n g t h e s u p p o r t payments from t h e p e t i t i o n e r . I n J u l y 1970, she sought t h e a s s i s t a n c e of t h e Clackamas County D i s t r i c t Attorney i n c o n t a c t i n g t h e p e t i t i o n e r t o c o l l e c t payments. P e t i t i o n e r was l o c a t e d i n P h i l l i p s b u r g , Montana, where he r e s i d e d . H e owns and oper- a t e s a logging company i n G r a n i t e County. P e t i t i o n e r agreed t o pay t h e wife $150 p e r month f o r c h i l d suppport, b u t i n t h e f i r s t t e n months of 1972, t h e wife r e p o r t e d t h a t she received only f i v e s u p p o r t payments. I n September 1973, t h e Clackamas County C i r c u i t Court determined t h a t t h e p e t i t i o n e r was $1500 i n a r r e a r s f o r support payments. I n 1975, a Clackamas County grand j u r y r e t u r n e d a t h r e e count indictment f o r nonpayment of c h i l d support a g a i n s t t h e p e t i t i o n e r . Warrants f o r p e t i t i o n e r ' s arrest w e r e s e n t t o t h e G r a n i t e County S h e r i f f . Although no a r r e s t was made, on October 31, 1976, t h e G r a n i t e County D i s t r i c t Court e n t e r e d an o r d e r r e q u i r i n g t h e p e t i t i o n e r t o pay $150 p e r month f o r t h e s u p p o r t of t h e t h r e e c h i l d r e n . P e t i t i o n e r made only t h r e e payments between August 1976 and January 1977, and on August 22, 1978, t h e Clackamas County grand jury i n d i c t e d t h e p e t i t i o n e r f o r two counts of c r i m i n a l nonsupport, a c l a s s C felony i n Oregon. The r e c o r d s of t h e Clackamas County C i r c u i t Court show t h a t i n 1978 only one payment was received from t h e p e t i t i o n e r . The Governor of Oregon signed a r e q u i s i t i o n seeking e x t r a d i t i o n of t h e p e t i t i o n e r t o Oregon f o r a t r i a l i n Clackamas County on two counts of c r i m i n a l nonsupport. Upon r e c e i p t of t h e r e q u i s i t i o n , Governor Thomas Judge of Montana i s s u e d a warrant f o r t h e a r r e s t of p e t i t i o n e r and f o r h i s d e l i v e r a n c e t o t h e authorized a g e n t of t h e Governor of Oregon. P e t i t i o n e r was a r r e s t e d by t h e G r a n i t e County S h e r i f f on A p r i l 19, 1979, and f i l e d a p e t i t i o n with t h e D i s t r i c t Court i n which he named t h e S t a t e of Montana a s p l a i n t i f f and himself a s defendant, and sought r e l i e f by means of a w r i t of habeas corpus. Each p a r t y f i l e d a b r i e f and memoran- dum i n support of i t s p o s i t i o n , and t h e District Court h e l d a show cause hearing on J u l y 24, 1979. The c o u r t ' s o r d e r of August 7 , 1979 ordered t h e r e l e a s e of p e t i t i o n e r from t h e custody of t h e G r a n i t e County S h e r i f f and r e q u i r e d t h e p e t i t i o n e r t o pay $100 p e r month f o r t h e s u p p o r t of h i s two sons. I t i s from t h i s o r d e r t h a t t h e S t a t e of Montana appeals. This c a s e involves a n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h e i n t e r a c t i o n between Montana's Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act and t h e Uniform Criminal E x t r a d i t i o n A c t . This appears t o be a c a s e of f i r s t impression i n Montana. The a p p e l l a n t S t a t e ' s argument i s based on i t s con- t e n t i o n t h a t t h e e x t r a d i t i o n of p e t i t i o n e r i s f o r a c r i m i n a l charge and t h a t a j u d i c i a l review of t h e p r o p r i e t y of t h e e x t r a d i t i o n o r d e r must be l i m i t e d t o t h e i n q u i r y permitted by t h e United S t a t e s Supreme Court i n t h e c a s e of Michigan v. Doran (1978), - U.S. 99 S.Ct. 530. See a l s o S t a t e v. Booth (1958), 134 Mont. 235, 328 P.2d 1104; I n re Hart (1978) I - Mont. , 583 P.2d 4 1 1 , 35 St.Rep. 1234. I n Doran, t h e p e t i t i o n e r sought a w r i t of habeas corpus i n o r d e r t o avoid e x t r a d i t i o n f o r charges of t h e f t of a motor v e h i c l e and t h e f t by embezzlement. The United S t a t e s Supreme Court held t h a t t h e Michigan Supreme Court e r r e d when it reversed t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s d e n i a l of t h e habeas corpus p e t i t i o n . The Doran d e c i s i o n i s based on t h e C o u r t ' s i n t e r p r e t a - t i o n of A r t i c l e I V , S e c t i o n 2 of t h e United S t a t e s Constitu- t i o n which provides: "A Person charged i n any S t a t e w i t h Treason, Felony, o r o t h e r C r i m e , who s h a l l f l e e from J u s t i c e , and be found i n another S t a t e , s h a l l on Demand of t h e e x e c u t i v e a u t h o r i t y of t h e S t a t e from which he f l e d , be d e l i v e r e d up, t o be removed t o t h e S t a t e having J u r i s d i c t i o n of t h e Crime." The Supreme Court h e l d t h a t A r t i c l e I V , S e c t i o n 2 p r o h i b i t e d c o u r t s i n t h e asylum s t a t e from reviewing t h e determination of a n e u t r a l m a g i s t r a t e i n t h e demanding s t a t e t h a t probable cause t o support t h e e x t r a d i t i o n demand e x i s t e d . The Court s t a t e d t h a t once t h e governor of t h e asylum s t a t e granted e x t r a d i t i o n , a c o u r t considering r e l e a s e on habeas corpus can do no more than decide " ( a ) whether t h e e x t r a d i t i o n documents on t h e i r f a c e a r e i n o r d e r ; ( b ) whether t h e p e t i - t i o n e r has been charged w i t h a crime i n t h e demanding s t a t e ; ( c ) whether t h e p e t i t i o n e r i s t h e person named i n t h e re- q u e s t f o r e x t r a d i t i o n ; and (d) whether t h e p e t i t i o n e r i s a f u g i t i v e . " Doran, supra, a t 535. I n t h e p r e s e n t case, Winston L. Bradshaw, p r e s i d i n g judge of t h e Clackamas County C i r c u i t Court, c e r t i f i e d t h a t he i n v e s t i g a t e d t h e f a c t s and circumstances of t h e c a s e , and t h a t t h e m e r i t s of t h e c a s e warrant a p p l i c a t i o n f o r r e q u i s i - t i o n . The Governor of t h e S t a t e of Montana has determined t h a t t h e copy of t h e r e q u i s i t i o n and o t h e r duly a u t h e n t i c a t e d papers f i l e d w i t h t h e demand j u s t i f y t h e e x e r c i s e of h i s d i s c r e t i o n i n g r a n t i n g e x t r a d i t i o n . Therefore, t h e S t a t e . - argues t h a t Suran,' supra, l i m i t s t h e i n q u i r y of t h e Montana c o u r t s t o t h e f o u r p o i n t s s t a t e d w i t h i n t h e opinion. The p e t i t i o n e r argues t h a t Duran does n o t apply t o h i s p e t i t i o n because t h e charge a g a i n s t him is based on h i s a l - leged f a i l u r e t o comply w i t h t h e c h i l d s u p p o r t o r d e r , which i s c i v i l and n o t c r i m i n a l . H e a n a l o g i z e s h i s duty of support t o o t h e r d u t i e s involving family m a t t e r s , such as custody m a t t e r s . H e argues t h a t t h e p e t i t i o n f o r habeas corpus of a c h i l d d e t a i n e d c o n t r a r y t o a custody o r d e r is t r e a t e d a s a c i v i l m a t t e r , and t h a t t h e c o u r t i n determining t h e m e r i t s of t h e p e t i t i o n has determined t h a t t h e c h i l d i s i l l e g a l l y d e t a i n e d , r e l y i n g upon I n re Thompson (1926), 77 Mont. 466, 251 P. 163. W e f i n d no m e r i t i n t h i s argument. H e r e t h e p e t i t i o n e r was i n d i c t e d f o r a c r i m i n a l o f f e n s e , c r i m i n a l nonsupport, which i s l i s t e d a s a c l a s s C felony i n t h e S t a t e of Oregon. The S t a t e of Oregon c l e a r l y contemplates c r i m i n a l proceedings a g a i n s t p e t i t i o n e r a s i t s r e q u i s i t i o n f o r e x t r a d i t i o n s t a t e d t h a t he had committed a crime i n t h e S t a t e of Oregon and t h a t t h e r e was no hope of success i n i n i t i a t i n g f u r t h e r pro- ceedings a g a i n s t him under URESA. Even t h e p e t i t i o n e r ' s own p e t i t i o n seeks r e l e a s e from e x t r a d i t i o n f o r c r i m i n a l charges and i s c l e a r l y d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e from c a s e s he cites where t h e habeas corpus proceeding was determined t o be c i v i l . P e t i t i o n e r has given u s no c a s e a u t h o r i t y , nor does t h e r e appear t o be any reason from t h o s e c a s e s c i t e d by him f o r distinguishing'Ba.xim from t h e p r e s e n t case. W e f i n d t h a t s e c t i o n 46-30-225, MCA, a s w e l l a s t h e $ 0 holding of t h e United S t a t e s Supreme Court i n Buran, r e q u i r e t h e r e v e r s a l of t h e ~ i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s o r d e r g r a n t i n g release of t h e p e t i t i o n e r . The m a t t e r i s r e t u r n e d t o t h e D i s t r i c t Court of G r a n i t e County r e i n s t a t i n g t h e proceeding and g r a n t i n g t h e Oregon r e q u e s t f o r e x t r a d i t i o n . W e concur: a 4 ~ a e Chief J u s t i c e CM- e . a // J u s t i c e s C/ M r . J u s t i c e Daniel J. Shea w i l l f i l e an opinion l a t e r .