Title: In re Nason

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

In re Nason  (96-269); 165 Vt 582; 682 A.2d 955

[Opinion Filed 28-Jun-1996]


                               ENTRY ORDER

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 96-269

                              JUNE TERM, 1996


In re Joseph Nason and               }     APPEALED FROM:
Randy Lee                            }
                                     }
                                     }     Rutland Superior Court
                                     }
                                     }
                                     }     DOCKET NO. S0061-96RcCa


       In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       Petitioners Randy Lee and Joseph Nason appeal from the Rutland
  Superior Court's denial of their habeas corpus petition seeking to prevent
  their extradition to Maine.  We affirm.

       Petitioners were arrested in Vermont on informations alleging that
  they were fugitives from the State of Maine on December 1, 1995.  They had
  been indicted by a Maine grand jury for burglary and receipt of stolen
  property and incarcerated in lieu of cash bail.  On January 19, 1996,
  petitioners were both served with a governor's warrant from the State of
  Maine and proposed rendition signed by the Governor of Vermont.

       On January 25, 1996, petitioners filed a joint petition for a writ of
  habeas corpus claiming that their restraint was unlawful for failure by the
  State to establish that they probably committed the crime.  See 13 V.S.A. §
  4950 ("legality of the arrest" must be tested by application for writ of
  habeas corpus).  On April 3, 1996, petitioners filed a supplemental habeas
  corpus petition challenging the extradition for the State's failure to show
  that they had violated their terms of bail, probation, or parole.  See 13
  V.S.A. § 4943(a).  The trial court denied both petitions.

       On appeal, petitioners raise two new arguments.  First, they claim
  that the governor's warrants fail to meet the requirement of 13 V.S.A. §
  4943(b) that the demanding jurisdiction establish that petitioners were
  "lawfully charged by indictment found or by information filed by a
  prosecuting officer and supported by affidavit to the facts . . . with
  having committed a crime under the laws of that state."  Petitioners argue
  that the supporting documents include an indictment but no supporting
  affidavits to the facts, as required by § 4943(b).  We disagree.

       As provisions in the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, 13 V.S.A. §
  4943(a) & (b) provide the bases for the issuance of an extradition warrant
  and must be read together.  In re Graziani, 156 Vt. 278, 280, 591 A.2d 91,
  93 (1991).  Section 4943(a) requires that a demand for extradition be
  "accompanied by a copy of an indictment found or by an information
  supported by affidavit in the state having jurisdiction of the crime, or by
  a copy of an affidavit made before a magistrate therein."  That subsection
  clearly shows that the phrase "supported by affidavit" modifies only the
  term "information."  Read in pari materia, the provisions do not support
  petitioners' statutory construction.

       Moreover, in interpreting the same provision, other states have
  rejected petitioners' construction.  E.g., State v. Jackson,