Crabtree v. State

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Crabtree v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 186 Mont. 340 →

Montana Supreme Court·Decided March 9, 1980·No. 14962·Published

Opinion

No. 14962 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

CHARLES L. CRABTREE,

Petitioner and Respondent, VS.

THE STATE OF MONTANA and MARVIN DAGEL, Sheriff, Respondents and Appellants.

Appeal from: District Court of the Third Judicial District, Honorable E. Gardner Brownlee, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellants: Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Chris Tweeten, Assistant Attorney General, argued, Helena, Montana For Respondent:

Richardson and Richardson, Butte, Montana William Richardson argued, Butte, Montana

Submitted: January 14, 1980

Decided: MAR 10 1w . Mr. J u s t i c e J o h n Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n o f t h e Court.

c his i s a n a p p e a l by t h e S t a t e o f Montana from a n o r d e r

of t h e D i s t r i c t Court, Third J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , i n and f o r

G r a n i t e County, which r e l e a s e d t h e p e t i t i o n e r , C h a r l e s L.

C r a b t r e e , from c u s t o d y o f t h e County S h e r i f f who was h o l d i n g

him p u r s u a n t t o a n e x t r a d i t i o n r e q u e s t from t h e S t a t e o f

Oregon.

The i s s u e b e f o r e t h i s C o u r t i s w h e t h e r t h e t r i a l judge

e r r e d i n c o n s i d e r i n g t h e m e r i t s o f t h e Oregon c h a r g e s a g a i n s t

C r a b t r e e when d e c i d i n g w h e t h e r o r n o t h e s h o u l d b e e x t r a d i t e d

t o t h e S t a t e o f Oregon.

The p e t i t i o n e r and h i s w i f e C o r r i n e A . Melton ( C r a b t r e e )

w e r e d i v o r c e d on F e b r u a r y 27, 1970 i n t h e Clackamas County

C i r c u i t Court. T h a t c o u r t o r d e r e d p e t i t i o n e r t o pay $225

p e r month f o r t h e s u p p o r t o f t h e p a r t i e s ' three children.

The w i f e had d i f f i c u l t y c o l l e c t i n g t h e s u p p o r t payments from

the petitioner. I n J u l y 1970, s h e sought t h e a s s i s t a n c e of

t h e Clackamas County D i s t r i c t A t t o r n e y i n c o n t a c t i n g t h e

p e t i t i o n e r t o c o l l e c t payments. P e t i t i o n e r was l o c a t e d i n

P h i l l i p s b u r g , Montana, where h e r e s i d e d . H e owns and o p e r -

a t e s a l o g g i n g company i n G r a n i t e County. P e t i t i o n e r agreed

t o pay t h e w i f e $150 p e r month f o r c h i l d s u p p p o r t , b u t i n

t h e f i r s t t e n months o f 1972, t h e w i f e r e p o r t e d t h a t s h e

r e c e i v e d o n l y f i v e s u p p o r t payments. I n September 1973, t h e

Clackamas County C i r c u i t C o u r t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e p e t i t i o n e r

was $1500 i n a r r e a r s f o r s u p p o r t payments.

I n 1 9 7 5 , a Clackamas County g r a n d j u r y r e t u r n e d a t h r e e

c o u n t i n d i c t m e n t f o r nonpayment o f c h i l d s u p p o r t a g a i n s t t h e

petitioner. Warrants f o r p e t i t i o n e r ' s arrest w e r e s e n t t o t h e

G r a n i t e County S h e r i f f . A l t h o u g h no a r r e s t was made, o n O c t o b e r 31, 1976, t h e G r a n i t e County D i s t r i c t C o u r t e n t e r e d

a n o r d e r r e q u i r i n g t h e p e t i t i o n e r t o pay $150 p e r month f o r

t h e support of the t h r e e children.

P e t i t i o n e r made o n l y t h r e e payments between August 1976

and J a n u a r y 1977, a n d on August 22, 1978, t h e Clackamas

County g r a n d j u r y i n d i c t e d t h e p e t i t i o n e r f o r two c o u n t s o f

c r i m i n a l n o n s u p p o r t , a c l a s s C f e l o n y i n Oregon. The r e c o r d s

o f t h e Clackamas County C i r c u i t C o u r t show t h a t i n 1978 o n l y

one payment was r e c e i v e d from t h e p e t i t i o n e r .

The Governor o f Oregon s i g n e d a r e q u i s i t i o n s e e k i n g

e x t r a d i t i o n o f t h e p e t i t i o n e r t o Oregon f o r a t r i a l i n

Clackamas County on two c o u n t s o f c r i m i n a l n o n s u p p o r t . Upon

r e c e i p t o f t h e r e q u i s i t i o n , Governor Thomas J u d g e of Montana

i s s u e d a w a r r a n t f o r t h e a r r e s t o f p e t i t i o n e r and f o r h i s

d e l i v e r a n c e t o t h e a u t h o r i z e d a g e n t o f t h e Governor o f

P e t i t i o n e r was a r r e s t e d by t h e G r a n i t e County S h e r i f f

on A p r i l 1 9 , 1979, and f i l e d a p e t i t i o n w i t h t h e D i s t r i c t

C o u r t i n which he named t h e S t a t e o f Montana a s p l a i n t i f f

and h i m s e l f a s d e f e n d a n t , and s o u g h t r e l i e f by means o f a

w r i t of habeas corpus. Each p a r t y f i l e d a b r i e f and memoran-

dum i n s u p p o r t o f i t s p o s i t i o n , and t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t h e l d

a show c a u s e h e a r i n g o n J u l y 24, 1979. The c o u r t ' s o r d e r o f

August 7 , 1979 o r d e r e d t h e r e l e a s e o f p e t i t i o n e r from t h e

c u s t o d y o f t h e G r a n i t e County S h e r i f f and r e q u i r e d t h e

p e t i t i o n e r t o pay $100 p e r month f o r t h e s u p p o r t o f h i s two

sons. I t i s from t h i s o r d e r t h a t t h e S t a t e o f Montana

appeals.

This c a s e involves an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h e i n t e r a c t i o n

between M o n t a n a ' s Uniform R e c i p r o c a l E n f o r c e m e n t o f S u p p o r t

A c t and t h e Uniform C r i m i n a l E x t r a d i t i o n A c t . This appears t o b e a c a s e o f f i r s t i m p r e s s i o n i n Montana.

The a p p e l l a n t S t a t e ' s argument i s b a s e d o n i t s con-

t e n t i o n t h a t t h e e x t r a d i t i o n of p e t i t i o n e r i s f o r a criminal

c h a r g e and t h a t a j u d i c i a l r e v i e w o f t h e p r o p r i e t y o f t h e

e x t r a d i t i o n o r d e r must b e l i m i t e d t o t h e i n q u i r y p e r m i t t e d

by t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t i n t h e c a s e o f Michigan

v . Doran ( 1 9 7 8 ) , - U.S. 99 S.Ct. 530. See a l s o S t a t e

v . Booth ( 1 9 5 8 ) , 134 Mont. 235, 328 P.2d 1104; I n re H a r t

(1978) I - Mont. , 583 P.2d 4 1 1 , 35 St.Rep. 1234. In Doran, t h e p e t i t i o n e r s o u g h t a w r i t o f h a b e a s c o r p u s i n

o r d e r t o a v o i d e x t r a d i t i o n f o r c h a r g e s o f t h e f t o f a motor

v e h i c l e and t h e f t by embezzlement. The U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme

C o u r t h e l d t h a t t h e Michigan Supreme C o u r t e r r e d when i t

r e v e r s e d t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s d e n i a l of t h e habeas corpus

petition.

The Doran d e c i s i o n i s b a s e d on t h e C o u r t ' s i n t e r p r e t a -

t i o n of A r t i c l e I V , S e c t i o n 2 of t h e United S t a t e s C o n s t i t u -

t i o n which p r o v i d e s :

"A P e r s o n c h a r g e d i n a n y S t a t e w i t h T r e a s o n , F e l o n y , o r o t h e r C r i m e , who s h a l l f l e e from J u s t i c e , and b e found i n a n o t h e r S t a t e , s h a l l on Demand o f t h e e x e c u t i v e a u t h o r i t y o f t h e S t a t e from which he f l e d , b e d e l i v e r e d up, t o b e removed t o t h e S t a t e h a v i n g J u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e Crime."

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