State v. Brackney

CourtMontana Supreme Court
DecidedMay 20, 1975
Docket12838
StatusPublished

This text of State v. Brackney (State v. Brackney) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Montana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. Brackney, (Mo. 1975).

Opinion

No. 12838

I N THE SUPREME C U T O T E STATE O MONTANA OR F H F

THE STATE O MONTANA, F 1_ .> \

P l a i n t i f f andiippellant,

-VS - EUYMOND LEE BRACKNEY, I 7 / 1 Defendant and Respondent.

Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Eighth J u d i c i a l District, Honorable Paul G. H a t f i e l d , Judge p r e s i d i n g .

Counsel o f Record:

For Appellant :

Smith, Emmons 6 B a i l l i e , Great F a l l s , Montana James R e Walsh argued, Great F a l l s , Montana

For Respondent :

Hon. Robert L. Woodahl, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Thomas A. Budewitz, A s s i s t a n t Attorney General, argued, Helena, Montana J. Fred Bourdeau, County Attorney, Great F a l l s , Montana

Submitted: May 8, 1975

Decided: MAY 2 0 1975 Filed : 't5Ay 2 1915 M r . J u s t i c e Wesley C a s t l e s d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court.

This i s an appeal by defendant from an o r d e r denying a w r i t of habeas corpus. Defendant was a r r e s t e d i n Great F a l l s , Montana, a t t h e a i r p o r t , where he a r r i v e d upon being deported from Canada. He was a r r e s t e d on a f u g i t i v e warrant from t h e s t a t e of California. The s t a t e of C a l i f o r n i a s e n t an e x t r a d i t i o n r e q u e s t t o t h e Governor of Montana, who, on A p r i l 9, 1974, signed a r e n d i t i o n warrant f o r t h e r e t u r n o f defendant t o C a l i f o r n i a by an a g e n t of t h e s t a t e of C a l i f o r n i a . Defendant was convicted i n t h e Superior Court of T u l a r e County, C a l i f o r n i a , of t h e crime of second degree b u r g l a r y , w i t h three p r i o r convictions. O December 22, 1966, he was committed n t o t h e s t a t e prison. O March 24, 1967, h i s sentence was amended n t o 8 years. O May 25, 1970, he was r e l e a s e d on p a r o l e . n O Septem- n b e r 9 , 1973, h i s p a r o l e was suspended,and he was ordered r e t u r n e d t o prison. Following d e f e n d a n t ' s a r r e s t i n Great F a l l s , and t h e r e c e i p t of t h e e x t r a d i t i o n r e q u e s t , defendant p e t i t i o n e d t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t of Cascade County f o r a w r i t of habeas corpus. A h e a r i n g was had b e f o r e t h e Honorable Paul G. H a t f i e l d on June 1 7 , 1974. Judge H a t f i e l d denied t h e w r i t and t h i s appeal was taken. Appellant s e t s f o r t h t h r e e i s s u e s f o r review which, i n o u r view, can be s t a t e d -- whether t h e Montana Governor's warrant was v a l i d ? I n a h i g h l y t e c h n i c a l argument i n h i s b r i e f , a p p e l l a n t would have u s scan t h e C a l i f o r n i a r e q u e s t f o r e x t r a d i t i o n t o s e e t h a t each "iff d o t t e d and "tf'c r o s s e d . was A t the hearing before Judge H a t f i e l d t h e i d e n t i t y of a p p e l l a n t was e s t a b l i s h e d by photo- graph and f i n g e r p r i n t s . The a p p l i c a t i o n f o r r e q u i s i t i o n , approved

a s t o form by t h e a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l of Montana, included p h o t o s t a t i c c o p i e s of l e g a l commitment d a t a ; f i x i n g o f term; g r a n t i n g of p a r o l e ; suspension of p a r o l e ; complaint; i n f o r m a t i o n ; r e p o r t , recommenda- t i o n o f probation o f f i c e r and judgment; a c t i o n of t h e C a l i f o r n i a Adult A u t h o r i t y f i x i n g t h e term and g r a n t i n g p a r o l e ; a c t i o n o f t h e Adult A u t h o r i t y suspending p a r o l e ; photograph and photocopy of f i n g e r p r i n t c a r d ; s e n t e n c e d a t a ; and, f i n a l l y , a photocopy of c o n d i t i o n s o f p a r o l e signed by a p p e l l a n t . Included i n t h e signed c o n d i t i o n o f p a r o l e i s a waiver of e x t r a d i t i o n . Appellant having been i d e n t i f i e d , t h e genuineness of t h e e x t r a d i t i o n r e q u e s t having been shown, t h e Governor of Montana's warrant having been i s s u e d , t h e r e was n o t h i n g l e f t f o r d e c i s i o n and t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t was c o r r e c t i n denying t h e a p p l i c a t i o n f o r w r i t of habeas corpus. Appellant makes much of what he c o n s i d e r s a b s o l u t e r e q u i - s i t e s under s e c t i o n 94-501-3, R.C.M. 1947. I n S t a t e v. Booth, 134 Mont. 235, 243, 244, 328 P.2d 1104, t h e s e r e q u i s i t e s were s e t f o r t h . The papers h e r e s u b s t a n t i a l l y comply. I n P e t i t i o n of Dixson, 149 Mont. 412, 439 P.2d 642, t h i s Court found t h a t a waiver of e x t r a d i t i o n b i n d s a p a r o l e e . We recognize t h a t a p p e l l a n t i n s i s t s t h a t t h e waiver of e x t r a d i t i o n was n o t argued i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t . The d i s t r i c t c o u r t examined t h e papers. I t d i d n o t g i v e any reason f o r denying t h e p e t i t i o n f o r

w r i t of habeas corpus, b u t i t i s s o p a t e n t l y apparent on t h e f a c e of t h e a p p l i c a t i o n and s u p p o r t i n g documents t h a t no r e a s o n needed t o be given. This Court s a i d i n Booth: "It has been thoroughly e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t t h e warrant of a r r e s t i s prima f a c i e evidence t h a t t h e r e l a t o r i n habeas corpus proceedings i s p r o p e r l y charged w i t h a crime, and t h e burden of proof i s upon him t o overcome t h a t presumption. II

The same r u l e a s t o burden of proof a p p l i e s when t h e demanding s t a t e has shown r e v o c a t i o n o r suspension of a p a r o l e w i t h a f u g i t i v e warrant o u t s t a n d i n g . Having reviewed t h e e n t i r e f i l e , we a f f i r m t h e o r d e r of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t . R e m i t t i t u r i s ordered t o be i s s u e d f o r t h w i t h and the appellant taken into custody for delivery to California authorities.

We Concur:

..................................... Chief Justice

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

Related

In Re Petition of Dixson
430 P.2d 642 (Montana Supreme Court, 1967)
State v. Booth
328 P.2d 1104 (Montana Supreme Court, 1958)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
State v. Brackney, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-brackney-mont-1975.