Case Name: Cynthia Laverne Raynor v. Dan Cronin, Manager of Safety and Excise and Ex-Officio Sheriff of the County of Denver, and Wayne K. Patterson, Warden of the Jail of the City and County of Denver and State of Colorado
Court: Colorado Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Colorado
Decision Date: 1976-12-13
Citations: 192 Colo. 239
Docket Number: No. 27371
Parties: Cynthia Laverne Raynor v. Dan Cronin, Manager of Safety and Excise and Ex-Officio Sheriff of the County of Denver, and Wayne K. Patterson, Warden of the Jail of the City and County of Denver and State of Colorado
Judges: 
Reporter: Colorado Reports
Volume: 192
Pages: 239–240

Head Matter:
No. 27371
Cynthia Laverne Raynor v. Dan Cronin, Manager of Safety and Excise and Ex-Officio Sheriff of the County of Denver, and Wayne K. Patterson, Warden of the Jail of the City and County of Denver and State of Colorado
(557 P.2d 398)
Decided December 13, 1976.
Rollie R. Rogers, State Public Defender, James F. Dumas, Jr., Chief Deputy, Dorian E. Welch, Deputy, for petitioner-appellant.
J. D. MacFarlane, Attorney General, Jean E. Dubofsky, Deputy, Edward G. Donovan, Solicitor General, J. Stephen Phillips, Assistant, for respondents-appellees.
En Banc.

Opinion:
Per Curiam
Cynthia Laverne Raynor appeals the trial court's dismissal of her petition for a writ of habeas corpus. She contends that extradition proceedings against her are defective and requests that we reconsider and disapprove the identification procedures and the law set forth in Deas v. Cronin, 190 Colo. 177, 544 P.2d 991 (1976) (prima facie case of identity established where extradition documents establish identity of names of person to be extradited and person named in requisition documents); Dominquez v. Bray, 188 Colo. 72, 532 P.2d 950 (1975) (photograph may establish proper proof of identity); Teters v. Watson, 190 Colo. 355, 547 P.2d 1277 (1976) (sufficiency of documents); Byers v. Leach, 187 Colo. 312, 530 P.2d 1276 (1975) (probable cause to establish probation violation properly based upon allegation by demanding state).
We decline to retreat from the principles which we recently articulated.
The judgment is affirmed.