Court Opinion

ID: 9551704
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:57:47.39309+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:24:25.599991
License: Public Domain

LOHR, Justice,
dissenting.
The majority holds that at the hearing on the writ of habeas corpus it was sufficiently established that the petitioner-appellant was the same person sought by the State of Texas and named in the Colorado Governor’s warrant. I respectfully dissent.
In a habeas corpus hearing in an extradition proceeding the People have the burden of showing that the petitioner is the person sought by the demanding state. See, e.g., Light v. Cronin, Colo., 621 P.2d 309 (1980); Samples v. Cronin, 189 Colo. 40, 536 P.2d 306 (1975). A prima facie showing of identity is established when it is demonstrated that the name of the petitioner is identical to that appearing in the requisition documents. Id. Here, the names are not the same, so the People cannot rely on name correspondence to establish prima facie identity. No other evidence of identity was presented by the People to carry their burden of proof.
All the Texas extradition documents, as well as the Colorado Governor’s warrant, described the fugitive sought as Bruce Cane Beverly. For the purpose of the hearing, the trial court accepted as a fact defense counsel’s representation that the driver’s license taken from the defendant when he was arrested in Colorado was issued to Bruce Lane Beverly and that he also had a birth certificate identifying him as Bruce Lane Beverly. The extradition papers contained no photographs, physical description, affidavits, or other information identifying the person sought. (Compare this case with Richardson v. Cronin, Colo., 621 P.2d 949 (1980), where an affidavit and photograph were utilized to resolve a question of identity raised by name discrepancies in extradition documents.) The only identification is the name, Bruce Cane Beverly, appearing numerous times in identical form in the extradition documents. The People presented no evidence to supplement the extradition documents to assist in identification of the defendant as the person sought.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court indicated an intention to continue the case for a further evidentiary hearing on identity. However, when the defendant objected to the continuance, the court summarily discharged the writ.
The authorities cited by the majority establish that a person named Bruce Cane Beverly, sought as a fugitive from the State of Texas, is the same person so identified in the Governor’s warrant. There is no basis in logic or in authority to create a presumption that the petitioner-appellant is that person. The discrepancy in name is too significant and the Bruce Cane Beverly designation is too frequently and consistently repeated in the extradition documents to dismiss this discrepancy as a typographical error without any additional evidence that the petitioner-appellant is the person sought. (Compare this case with Dilworth v. Leach, 183 Colo. 206, 515 P.2d 1130 (1973), where the petitioner’s name was spelled O’Dell Dilworth in some of the extradition documents and Odell Dillworth in others, and we held that the differences were in*624consequential, applying the doctrine of idem sonans.) The majority opinion shifts the burden of proof to the petitioner-appellant to show lack of identity without a legitimate basis for a presumption of identity to justify that shift.1
The majority relies on In Re Extradition of Leonard, 27 Ill.App.3d 870, 327 N.E.2d 480 (1975) in support of its argument that there is a presumption that Bruce Lane Beverly and Bruce Cane Beverly describe the same person. The name discrepancy in In Re Leonard was between T. C. Leonard and Thomas C. Leonard, names consistent, although not identical in form. See Guy v. Nelson, Colo., 630 P.2d 610 (1981). Similarly, in Wollweber v. Martin, 226 Ga. 20, 172 S.E.2d 605 (1970), also relied on by the majority, the court held that the petitioner, who acknowledged that he was James Woll-weber, had the burden to show that he was not the James W. Wollwebber named in the Governor’s warrant. Again, contrary to the instant case, the names are consistent. The majority offers no authority to support its novel holding that a presumption of identity can be recognized notwithstanding different and inconsistent middle names.
I would reverse the judgment of the district court, and remand the matter to grant the petition for habeas corpus, or for a further evidentiary hearing, in the trial court’s discretion.

. Only if the petitioner-appellant has the burden of proving that he is not the person sought is it relevant that he failed to disprove identity. In his petition it is simply stated “[t]hat this Petitioner is not shown to be the same person as the person alleged in the affidavit and warrant to be the perpetrator of the offense which are (sic) the basis for the extradition proceedings.” This was sufficient to place identity in issue.