No. 12838 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

1975 

THE STATE OF MONTANA, 

1_ .> \ 

Plaintiff andiippellant, 

-VS - 

EUYMOND LEE BRACKNEY, 

7 / I 

1 

Defendant and Respondent. 

Appeal from: District Court of the Eighth Judicial District, 

Honorable Paul G. Hatfield, Judge presiding. 

Counsel of Record: 

For Appellant : 

Smith, Emmons 6 Baillie, Great Falls, Montana 

James Re Walsh argued, Great Falls, 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 Falls, Montana 

Submitted: May 8, 1975 

Decided: MAY 2 0 1975 

Filed : 't5Ay 2 1915 
Mr. Justice Wesley Castles delivered the Opinion of the Court. 

This is an appeal by defendant from an order denying a 

writ of habeas corpus. Defendant was arrested in Great Falls, 

Montana, at the airport, where he arrived upon being deported from 

Canada. He was arrested on a fugitive warrant from the state of 

California. The state of California sent an extradition request 

to the Governor of Montana, who, on April 9, 1974, signed a rendition 

warrant for the return of defendant to California by an agent of 

the state of California. 

Defendant was convicted in the Superior Court of Tulare 

County, California, of the crime of second degree burglary, with 

three prior convictions. On December 22, 1966, he was committed 

to the state prison. On March 24, 1967, his sentence was amended 

to 8 years. On May 25, 1970, he was released on parole. On September 9, 1973, his parole was suspended,and he was ordered returned 

to prison. 

Following defendant's arrest in Great Falls, and the 

receipt of the extradition request, defendant petitioned the 

district court of Cascade County for a writ of habeas corpus. A 

hearing was had before the Honorable Paul G. Hatfield on June 17, 

1974. Judge Hatfield denied the writ and this appeal was taken. 

Appellant sets forth three issues for review which, in 

our view, can be stated -- whether the Montana Governor's warrant 

was valid? 

In a highly technical argument in his brief, appellant 

would have us scan the California request for extradition to see 

that each "iff was dotted and "tf' crossed. At the hearing before 

Judge Hatfield the identity of appellant was established by photograph and fingerprints. The application for requisition, approved 

as to form by the attorney general of Montana, included photostatic 

copies of legal commitment data; fixing of term; granting of parole; 
suspension of parole; complaint; information; report, recommendation of probation officer 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, finally, a photocopy of 

conditions of parole signed by appellant. 

Included in the signed condition of parole is a waiver 

of extradition. Appellant having been identified, the genuineness 

of the extradition request having been shown, the Governor of Montana's 

warrant having been issued, there was nothing left for decision 

and the district court was correct in denying the application for 

writ of habeas corpus. 

Appellant makes much of what he considers absolute requisites under section 94-501-3, R.C.M. 1947. In State v. Booth, 134 

Mont. 235, 243, 244, 328 P.2d 1104, these requisites were set forth. 

The papers here substantially comply. 

In Petition of Dixson, 149 Mont. 412, 439 P.2d 642, this 

Court found that a waiver of extradition binds a parolee. We 

recognize that appellant insists that the waiver of extradition was 

not argued in the district court. The district court examined the 

papers. It did not give any reason for denying the petition for 

writ of habeas corpus, but it is so patently apparent on the face 

of the application and supporting documents that no reason needed 

to be given. This Court said in Booth: 

"It has been thoroughly established that the 

warrant of arrest is prima facie evidence that 

the relator in habeas corpus proceedings is 

properly charged with a crime, and the burden 

of proof is upon him to overcome that presumption. II 

The same rule as to burden of proof applies when the demanding state 

has shown revocation or suspension of a parole with a fugitive 

warrant outstanding. 

Having reviewed the entire file, we affirm the order 

of the district court. Remittitur is ordered to be issued forthwith 
and the appellant taken into custody for delivery to California 

authorities. 

We Concur: 

..................................... Chief Justice