Case Name: John Paul Bartz, Jr. v. Alfred L. Capra, Manager of Safety and Excise and Ex-Officio Sheriff, City and County of Denver, State of Colorado, and Harold Dill, Chief of Police, City and County of Denver, State of Colorado
Court: Colorado Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Colorado
Decision Date: 1967-01-30
Citations: 161 Colo. 503
Docket Number: No. 21928
Parties: John Paul Bartz, Jr. v. Alfred L. Capra, Manager of Safety and Excise and Ex-Officio Sheriff, City and County of Denver, State of Colorado, and Harold Dill, Chief of Police, City and County of Denver, State of Colorado.
Judges: 
Reporter: Colorado Reports
Volume: 161
Pages: 503–504

Head Matter:
No. 21928.
John Paul Bartz, Jr. v. Alfred L. Capra, Manager of Safety and Excise and Ex-Officio Sheriff, City and County of Denver, State of Colorado, and Harold Dill, Chief of Police, City and County of Denver, State of Colorado.
(423 P.2d 25)
Decided January 30, 1967.
Shoemaker and Wham, J. J. Kubat, Jr., for plaintiff in error.
Duke W. Dunbar, Attorney General, Frank E. Hickey, Deputy, James E. Pamp, Assistant, for defendants in error.
In Department.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
John Paul Bartz, Jr., in habeas corpus proceedings challenges the legality of extradition papers in which authorities in the State of Florida seek his return to that state to stand trial on the charges (1) that he committed the crime of unlawful and fraudulent issuance of stock; and (2) that he had issued a debenture bond in violation of a pertinent provision of the statutes of the State of Florida. The extradition documents from that state make appropriate reference to the statutes allegedly violated by him.
Counsel for Bartz aptly state the question for our determination in the following words:
"Petitioner feels that the nature of the proceedings is such that only a question of law is presented, namely, whether petitioner, the person whose extradition is demanded by the State of Florida, is substantially charged with a crime by indictment, information, or affidavit made before a magistrate, under the law of the demanding state. "
We have read the record before us, have heard the arguments of counsel, and have given due consideration to the authorities to- which our attention has been directed. We hold that in the instant proceeding, under the legal tests applicable in Florida, Bartz is "substantially charged" with the crimes defined by the statutes to which reference is made.
The judgment of the trial court, which discharged the writ of habeas corpus and remanded Bartz to custody, is affirmed.
Mr. Chief Justice Moore, Mr. Justice McWilliams, Mr. Justice Hodges and Mr. Justice Kelley concur.