Court Opinion

ID: 9564833
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:08:42.29715+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:42.154152
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Knauss
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. In habeas corpus proceedings following an extradition order the guilt or innocence of the petitioner is not an issue. Conjecture and surmise *109cannot supplant that which abundantly appears as a basis for the extradition warrant.
This court should not negative the order of our Chief Executive where, as here, it is manifest that Matthews was charged with non-support while in Colorado, resulting in a crime in Nebraska. Even a casual reading of the record discloses this, and while some superfluous words may have been used by the Governor of Nebraska, it manifestly appears and surely petitioner and his counsel knew exactly with what Matthews was asked to respond to in Nebraska. The matters which form the basis for the majority opinoin were not raised in the trial court by Matthews’ counsel. It is patent that the Governor of Nebraska and our Chief Executive acted pursuant to C.R.S. ’53, 60-1-6.
■ We cannot conjecture that Matthews’ wife deserted him. It is just as reasonable under this record to say that Mrs. Matthews went to live with her mother in Nebraska in order that she and the children could have the necessities of life.
In essence there is only one question involved in the instant case, viz.:
Did the fact that the Governor of Nebraska recited as his authority for his requisition the provisions of the Constitution and laws of the United States void the requisition and the rendition warrant? I think not. Ex Parte Oxford, 157 Tex. Cr. App. 512, 249 S.W. 2nd 917 is a case where the Governor of Oklahoma sent a requisition to the Governor of Texas and without stating that the person demanded was a fugitive from justice, stated that in making the requisition he was acting by virtue of the Constitution and laws of the United States. The Chief Executive of Texas granted extradition under the Texas applicable statute and the Court of Criminal Appeals upheld him. On rehearing the court said:
“ ‘Appellant contends that we were in error in holding that the extradition in the instant case was authorized by Section 5 of the Support Act. His contention is *110that, since the requisition or demand of the Governor of Oklahoma, by its terms, recited that in issuing the same he was acting by virtue of the Constitution and laws of the United States, these proceedings should be judged as to their legality upon the quoted authority and no more.
“ ‘He contends that Section 5 of the Support Act and Section 6 of the Extradition Act, Art. 1008a, Vernon’s Ann, C.C.P., may not be considered by this Court, since the Governor of Oklahoma did not predicate his requisition upon them by name or number or other allegation.
“‘We are not here passing upon the authority under which the Governor of Oklahoma acted but must confine this inquiry as to the legality of the ruling of the trial court in honoring the executive warrant of the Governor of Texas.
“ ‘The authority under which the Governor of Oklahoma acted is not an issue at such hearing.
“ ‘Remaining convinced that we properly disposed of this cause originally, appelant’s motion for rehearing is overruled’ ”
I find myself in complete harmony with the holding of the Texas court. I fail to see that Stobie v. Barger, 129 Colo. 222, 268 P. (2d) 409 is in point. The warrant in the instant case followed the demand of the Governor of Nebraska. The obligation of husbands and fathers to provide reasonable support for their families in my opinion transcends any technical objection to the proceeding which may eventually result in a trial under the uniform non-support law. The Oxford case is apparently the only reported case in which the identical question has been decided.
I am satisfied that the pertinent statutes were complied with and that the trial court correctly denied the writ of habeas corpus. If Matthews has a defense I am sure the courts of Nebraska will grant him a fair and impartial trial, and that he should not be permitted to *111remain here in defiance of our laws and those of the Commonwealth of Nebraska. There is a definite purpose to be attained under the non-support statutes, and according to my thinking the officers who seek to enforce them should not be handicapped in their efforts by highly technical and hypercritical holdings, even though surplus words may appear in the demand and in the warrant issued by the Governor of Colorado, who in no sense was a “volunteer.”