Tenorio v. Cronin

Supreme Court of Colorado

Tenorio v. Cronin

565 P.2d 932, 193 Colo. 295

CourtSupreme Court of Colorado

DecidedJune 6, 1977

DocketNo. 27429

StatusPublished

This text of 565 P.2d 932 (Tenorio v. Cronin) 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

Tenorio v. Cronin, 565 P.2d 932, 193 Colo. 295 (Colo. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

MR. JUSTICE ERICKSON

delivered the opinion of the Court.

A writ of habeas corpus was issued by the district court and after a hearing was discharged. The petitioner, Louis Tenorio, appeals. We affirm.

Only one issue exists in this extradition proceeding. The petitioner claims that the California authorities fell short in their attempts to [296]*296extradite him because the governor did not sign the requisition documents. The documents were signed by the acting governor who was the secretary of state. The capacity of the secretary of state to act on behalf of the governor was duly authenticated. California Constitution, Article 5, Section 10 (1974). See also U.S. Const., Art. IV, Sec. 2(2); Colorado Fugitive Act, section 16-19-102, C.R.S. 1973.

The burden of proof was on the petitioner to overcome the presumption that the person signing the extradition papers had the authority and was properly exercising the incidents of his office as the acting governor. See Krenwinkel v. State, 45 Ala.App. 474, 232 So.2d 346 (1970); State ex rel. Arnold v. Justus, 84 Minn. 237, 87 N.W. 770 (1901); Cockburn v. Willman, 301 Mo. 575, 257 S.W. 458 (1923); Ex parte Fant, 400 S.W.2d 332 (Tex.Crim.App. 1966); Ex parte Fuqua, 162 Tex.Crim.Rep. 126, 283 S.W.2d 50 (1955). The petitioner offered no evidence and relied solely on the fact that the governor was not the party who signed the requisition papers. Petitioner, therefore, failed to establish the invalidity of the extradition process.

Accordingly, we affirm.

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

MR. JUSTICE ERICKSON

delivered the opinion of the Court.

A writ of habeas corpus was issued by the district court and after a hearing was discharged. The petitioner, Louis Tenorio, appeals. We affirm.

Only one issue exists in this extradition proceeding. The petitioner claims that the California authorities fell short in their attempts to [296]*296extradite him because the governor did not sign the requisition documents. The documents were signed by the acting governor who was the secretary of state. The capacity of the secretary of state to act on behalf of the governor was duly authenticated. California Constitution, Article 5, Section 10 (1974). See also U.S. Const., Art. IV, Sec. 2(2); Colorado Fugitive Act, section 16-19-102, C.R.S. 1973.

The burden of proof was on the petitioner to overcome the presumption that the person signing the extradition papers had the authority and was properly exercising the incidents of his office as the acting governor. See Krenwinkel v. State, 45 Ala.App. 474, 232 So.2d 346 (1970); State ex rel. Arnold v. Justus, 84 Minn. 237, 87 N.W. 770 (1901); Cockburn v. Willman, 301 Mo. 575, 257 S.W. 458 (1923); Ex parte Fant, 400 S.W.2d 332 (Tex.Crim.App. 1966); Ex parte Fuqua, 162 Tex.Crim.Rep. 126, 283 S.W.2d 50 (1955). The petitioner offered no evidence and relied solely on the fact that the governor was not the party who signed the requisition papers. Petitioner, therefore, failed to establish the invalidity of the extradition process.

Accordingly, we affirm.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

565 P.2d 932, 193 Colo. 295, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tenorio-v-cronin-colo-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack