Court Opinion

ID: 9543223
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:43:22.382073+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:09:58.857869
License: Public Domain

BURKE, Justice,
with whom ERWIN, Justice, joins, (dissenting in part, concurring in part).
I dissent from that portion of the majority opinion holding that we may not rely upon the information provided by the “summary of sentencing data”, in judging the sufficiency of the demand for Holt’s extradition.
Holt is an alleged parole violator. In Wortham v. State1 this court held:
The probable cause requirements for rendering up an alleged parole violator are . . . less stringent than the requirements for extraditing one who has only been charged with and not convicted of a crime.
The majority’s refusal to give any weight to the “summary” is, I believe, an overly technical application of the requirements of AS 12.70.020(b).
Given the information to be gained by a review of the entire record, including that supplied by the “summary of sentencing data”, it appears to me that the result in this case is controlled by the recent decisions of the California Supreme Court in In re Rodriguez 2 and People v. Wingo.3
In all other respects I concur.

. 519 P.2d 797, 800 (Alaska 1974).

. 14 Cal.3d 639, 122 Cal.Rptr. 552, 537 P.2d 384 (1975).

. 14 Cal.3d 169, 121 Cal.Rptr. 97, 534 P.2d 1001 (1975).