Title: Harding v. People
Citation: 423 P.2d 847
Docket Number: 22225
State: Colorado
Issuer: Colorado Supreme Court
Date: February 14, 1967

423 P.2d 847 (1967) Mark HARDING, also known as Albert Lee Mark Harding, Plaintiff in Error, v. The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, and Alfred L. Capra, Manager of Safety and Ex-Officio Sheriff of the City and County of Denver, State of Colorado, and Harold Dill, Chief of Police, City and County of Denver, State of Colorado, Defendants in Error. No. 22225. Supreme Court of Colorado, In Department. February 14, 1967. Rehearing Denied March 6, 1967. *848 B. F. Napheys, III, Denver, for plaintiff in error. Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., Frank E. Hickey, Deputy Atty. Gen., James F. Pamp, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendants in error. SUTTON, Justice. By this writ of error, Mark Harding, plaintiff in error, seeks to reverse the trial court's refusal to grant him a writ of habeas corpus wherein he sought his release from custody in an extradition proceeding requested by the Governor of the State of Arizona. The Arizona charge is the felony of "Grand Theft (Embezzlement)." Harding urges numerous grounds of error, but only two will hereinafter be discussed since there is no merit to the others which relate primarily to defenses he can raise at his trial in Arizona or to matters which are now moot at this stage of the proceedings. See Capra v. Miller, Colo., 422 P.2d 636, decided January 23, 1967; *849 Fox v. People, Colo., 420 P.2d 412; Velasquez v. People, 154 Colo. 284, 389 P.2d 849 (1964); and Travis v. People, 135 Colo. 141, 308 P.2d 997 (1957). The two alleged errors which we shall consider are: The warrant in question reads in pertinent part as follows: This warrant is accompanied by a document authorizing the above-mentioned "L. C. Boies, or agent," to transport Harding out of the State of Colorado, and another document ordering the delivery of Harding into the custody of Boies or agent. Both of these papers are signed by the Governor of the State of Colorado and amply compensate for the clerical error in failing to fill in the two blank spaces in the initial document. See Fox, supra; Self v. People, 133 Colo. 524, 297 P.2d 887 (1956). As to Harding's contention that the warrant fails to state that he was in the State of Arizona at the time that the alleged crime was committed, we hold this not to be error. It is well-settled that the warrant of the governor of the asylum state is prima facie evidence of three things and three things only: (1) that the defendant is substantially charged with a crime in the demanding state; (2) that he is a fugitive from the justice of that state; and (3) that a demand has been made for his delivery to the state wherein he is charged with a crime. See Capra v. Miller, supra; Fox v. People, supra; Krutka v. Bryer, 150 Colo. 293, 372 P.2d 83 (1962); Wigchert v. Lockhart, 114 Colo. 485, 166 P.2d 988 (1946). Harding has cited C.R.S.1963, 60-1-3 and Buhler v. People, 151 Colo. 345, 377 P.2d 748 (1963) for the proposition that the warrant from the governor of the asylum state must include a statement that the defendant was present in the demanding state at the time of commission of the alleged crime. In this he is in error. Neither the statute nor the case in question imposes such a requirement. The statute, in plain language, reads as follows: The requirement of alleging presence in the demanding state is thus clearly imposed upon the requisition of the governor of the demanding state rather than upon the warrant of the governor of the asylum state, and the papers from the State of Arizona are complete in this respect. The question as to whether a defendant is *850 a fugitive from justice is one of fact. The presumption raised by a governor's warrant is an asylum state in a habeas corpus proceeding may be overcome either by a petitioner showing that he was not within the demanding state at the time the crime was committed or that he has not since left the statewhich Harding failed to do here. To create the presumption, however, it is sufficient that the warrant recite that he is a fugitive from justice in the demanding state. See Self v. People, supra; Wigchert v. Lockhart, supra. The judgment is affirmed. MOORE, C.J., and DAY and KELLEY, JJ., concur.