Title: STATE v BRACKNEY

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

No. 12838 I N THE S U P R E M E C O U R T O F T H E STATE O F MONTANA 1975 THE STATE O F M O N T A N A , 1 _ .> \ P l a i n t i f f andiippellant, -VS - EUYMOND LEE BRACKNEY, 7 / I 1 Defendant and Respondent. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of the Eighth J u d i c i a l District, Honorable Paul G. Hatfield, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant : Smith, Emmons 6 B a i l l i e , Great F a l l s , Montana James R e Walsh argued, Great F a l l s , Montana For Respondent : Hon. Robert L. Woodahl, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Thomas A. Budewitz, Assistant Attorney General, argued, Helena, Montana J. Fred Bourdeau, County Attorney, Great F a l l s , Montana Submitted: May 8, 1975 Decided: MAY 2 0 1975 Filed : 't5Ay 2 1915 M r . J u s t i c e Wesley Castles delivered t h e Opinion of the Court. This is an appeal by defendant from an order denying a w r i t of habeas corpus. Defendant was arrested i n Great F a l l s , Montana, a t the a i r p o r t , where he arrived upon being deported from Canada. He was arrested on a fugitive warrant from the s t a t e of California. The s t a t e of California sent an extradition request t o the Governor of Montana, who, on April 9, 1974, signed a rendition warrant f o r the return of defendant t o California by an agent of the s t a t e of California. Defendant was convicted i n the Superior Court of Tulare County, California, of t h e crime of second degree burglary, with three p r i o r convictions. O n December 22, 1966, he was committed t o the s t a t e prison. O n March 24, 1967, h i s sentence was amended t o 8 years. O n May 25, 1970, he was released on parole. O n Septem- ber 9, 1973, h i s parole was suspended,and he was ordered returned t o prison. Following defendant's a r r e s t i n Great F a l l s , and the r e c e i p t of t h e extradition request, defendant petitioned the d i s t r i c t court of Cascade County f o r a w r i t of habeas corpus. A hearing was had before the Honorable Paul G. Hatfield on June 17, 1974. Judge Hatfield denied the w r i t and t h i s appeal was taken. Appellant s e t s f o r t h three issues f o r review which, i n our view, can be s t a t e d -- whether t h e Montana Governor's warrant was valid? In a highly technical argument i n h i s b r i e f , appellant would have us scan the California request f o r extradition t o see t h a t each "iff was dotted and "tf' crossed. A t the hearing before Judge Hatfield the i d e n t i t y of appellant was established by photo- graph and fingerprints. The application f o r requisition, approved a s t o form by the attorney general of Montana, included photostatic copies of l e g a l commitment data; fixing of term; granting of parole; suspension of parole; complaint; information; report, recommenda- t i o n of probation o f f i c e r and judgment; action of the California Adult Authority fixing the term and granting parole; action of the Adult Authority suspending parole; photograph and photocopy of fingerprint card; sentence data; and, f i n a l l y , a photocopy of conditions of parole signed by appellant. Included i n the signed condition of parole i s a waiver of extradition. Appellant having been i d e n t i f i e d , the genuineness of the extradition request having been shown, the Governor of Montana's warrant having been issued, there was nothing l e f t f o r decision and the d i s t r i c t court was correct i n denying the application f o r w r i t of habeas corpus. Appellant makes much of what he considers absolute requi- s i t e s under section 94-501-3, R.C.M. 1947. In State v. Booth, 134 Mont. 235, 243, 244, 328 P.2d 1104, these r e q u i s i t e s were s e t forth. The papers here substantially comply. I n Petition of Dixson, 149 Mont. 412, 439 P.2d 642, t h i s Court found t h a t a waiver of extradition binds a parolee. W e recognize t h a t appellant i n s i s t s t h a t the waiver of extradition was not argued i n the d i s t r i c t court. The d i s t r i c t court examined the papers. It did not give any reason f o r denying the p e t i t i o n f o r w r i t of habeas corpus, but it is so patently apparent on the face of t h e application and supporting documents t h a t no reason needed t o be given. This Court s a i d i n Booth: "It has been thoroughly established t h a t t h e warrant of a r r e s t i s prima f a c i e evidence t h a t the r e l a t o r i n habeas corpus proceedings i s properly charged with a crime, and the burden of proof is upon him t o overcome t h a t presumption. I I The same r u l e a s t o burden of proof applies when the demanding s t a t e has shown revocation o r suspension of a parole with a f u g i t i v e warrant outstanding. Having reviewed the e n t i r e f i l e , we affirm the order of the d i s t r i c t court. Remittitur i s ordered t o be issued forthwith and the appellant taken into custody for delivery to California authorities. We Concur: ..................................... Chief Justice