No. 12838 INTHE 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 

### ReWalsh argued, Great Falls, Montana For Respondent

### : Hon. Robert L. Woodahl, Attorney General, Helena,

Montana Thomas A. Budewitz, AssistantAttorney General,

argued, Helena, Montana J. Fred Bourdeau, County Attorney, Great Falls, Montana

Submitted: May 

### 8, 1975 Decided: 

### MAY

### 2

## 01975 Filed: 't5Ay 

### 2 1915Mr. JusticeWesley Castles delivered the Opinion of the Court. This 

### is an appeal by defendant from an order denying a writof habeas corpus. Defendant was arrested in Great Falls, Montana, at the airport, where he arrivedupon being deported from Canada. He was arrested on a fugitivewarrant from the stateof California. The state of California sent an extraditionrequest tothe Governor of Montana, who, on April 9, 1974, signed a rendition warrant for the return of defendant toCalifornia by an agent of the stateof 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 stateprison. 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 parolewas suspended,and he was ordered returned toprison. Following defendant's arrest in Great Falls, and the receipt of the extradition request, defendant petitioned the district court of Cascade County for a 

### writof habeas corpus. A hearing was had before the Honorable Paul G. Hatfield on June 17, 1974. Judge Hatfield denied the 

### writand this appeal was taken. Appellant sets forth three issues forreviewwhich, in
our view, can be stated

# --whether theMontana Governor's warrant was valid? In a highly technical argument inhis brief, appellant would have us scan the California request for extradition to see that each "iff was dotted and "tf' crossed. Atthe hearing before Judge Hatfield the identity of appellant was established by photograph and fingerprints. The application forrequisition, 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 signedby appellant. Included in the signed condition of parole is a waiver of extradition. Appellant having been identified, the genuineness of the extraditionrequest having been shown, the Governor of Montana's warrant having been issued, therewas nothing left for decision and the district court was correct indenying the application for writ of habeas corpus. Appellant makes much of what he considers absoluterequisitesunder section 94-501-3, R.C.M. 1947. In Statev. Booth, 134 Mont. 235, 243, 244, 328 P.2d 1104, these requisiteswere set forth. The papers here substantially comply. In Petition of Dixson, 149Mont. 412, 439 P.2d 642, this Court found that a waiver of extraditionbinds a parolee. We recognize that appellant insists that thewaiver of extraditionwas not argued in the districtcourt. The district court examined the papers. It didnot give any reason for denying the petition for 

### writ of habeas corpus, but it 

### is sopatently apparent on the face of the application and supporting documents that no reason needed tobe given. This Court said inBooth: "It has been thoroughly established that the warrant of arrest 

### is prima facie evidence that the relator inhabeas corpus proceedings is properly charged with a crime, and theburden of proof isupon him to overcome that presumption. II The same ruleas toburden of proof applieswhen the demanding state has shown revocation or suspension of a parole with a fugitive warrant outstanding. Having reviewed the entire file, we affirmthe order of the districtcourt. Remittitur is ordered tobe issued forthwith

### and the appellant taken into custody for delivery to 

### California authorities.

We Concur:



# ..................................... Chief Justice