Bell v. Bower

606 P.2d 74, 199 Colo. 195, 1980 Colo. LEXIS 569
CourtSupreme Court of Colorado
DecidedFebruary 11, 1980
Docket79SA90
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 606 P.2d 74 (Bell v. Bower) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Colorado primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bell v. Bower, 606 P.2d 74, 199 Colo. 195, 1980 Colo. LEXIS 569 (Colo. 1980).

Opinion

JUSTICE LEE

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Appellant Melvin Bell appeals from the dismissal by the district court of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. We affirm the district court.

Appellant was sentenced in federal court in Wyoming for violation of the Mann Act. While confined in the Laramie County Jail in Cheyenne, Wyoming, pending transfer to federal prison, and without the benefit of extradition proceedings, he was removed from the Wyoming jail by U. S. Marshalls and turned over to officers of the Weld County, Colorado, sheriffs department. He was then brought to Weld County and charged with first-degree sexual assault. After trial, he was convicted of second-degree sexual assault. Appellant petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, contending that his Colorado conviction is invalid because he was unlawfully removed from Wyoming by the Weld County sheriff. We do not agree.

The law on this question is well established:

“The circumstances by which an accused person comes before a court have no bearing on the court’s power to try him. Frisbee v. Collins, 342 U.S. 519, 72 S.Ct. 509, 96 L.Ed. 541 (1952). A court which has jurisdiction of the subject matter of the criminal prosecution need not inquire how a defendant was brought before it; his presence in court is sufficient to confer jurisdiction over his person. Massey v. People, 179 Colo. 167, 498 P.2d 953 (1972); DeBaca v. Trujillo, 167 Colo. 311, 447 P.2d 533 (1968).” Brown v. Dist. Ct., 194 Colo. 225, 571 P.2d 1091 (1977).

The manner by which appellant was brought to Colorado, therefore, has no bearing on the validity of appellant’s conviction, and the district court was correct in dismissing the habeas corpus proceeding.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

People v. Sandoval
2016 COA 57 (Colorado Court of Appeals, 2016)
People v. Garcia
2013 COA 15 (Colorado Court of Appeals, 2013)
People v. Jones
140 P.3d 325 (Colorado Court of Appeals, 2006)
Chatfield v. Colorado Court of Appeals
775 P.2d 1168 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1989)
Sweaney v. District Court In & For the Eighteenth Judicial District
713 P.2d 914 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1986)
Sweaney v. DIST. COURT. EIGHTEENTH JUD. DIST.
713 P.2d 914 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1986)
Vazquez v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division
487 N.E.2d 171 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1985)
Secrest v. Simonet
708 P.2d 803 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1985)
People v. Greenwald
704 P.2d 312 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1985)
Yellen v. Nelson
680 P.2d 234 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1984)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
606 P.2d 74, 199 Colo. 195, 1980 Colo. LEXIS 569, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bell-v-bower-colo-1980.