Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

197 Colo. 227

591 P.2d 97

Tatum v. Cronin

Supreme Court of Colorado

Decided March 5, 1979

Supreme Court of Colorado · decided 1979-03-05

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently December 1982

8 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““... [N]o showing of probable cause is necessary for the extradition of a person who has been convicted and sentenced .... Extradition is based not upon violation of the terms of his probation, but upon the substantive criminal offense for which the appellant has not yet completed his sentence. Under such circumstances, all that is required is a record of the conviction and a statement by the governor of the requisition state that the person sought has violated the terms of his-probation.” (Citations omitted).”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Michaels v. Caldwell

Relies on Wynsma v. Leach · Gordon v. Cronin

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1979-03-05

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

MR. JUSTICE ROVIRA

¶1 delivered the opinion of the Court.

¶2 Richard F. Tatum (defendant) was arrested in Denver and held for extradition to Minnesota. The extradition request was supported by a copy of judgments of conviction for aggravated assault and escape, and by a statement signed by the Governor of Minnesota that the defendant had violated the terms of his parole. The defendant petitioned the district court for a writ of habeas corpus alleging that the detention violated his rights under the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article II, Sections 7 and 25 of the Colorado Constitution. The writ was discharged, and the defendant appealed. We affirm the order of the district court.

¶3 The defendant was convicted of two offenses in Minnesota: aggravated assault on December 9, 1970, and escape on January 23, 1975. He was sentenced to terms of ten years and eighteen months, respectively. On March 8, 1978, the defendant was granted parole subject to certain conditions, one of which was that he not leave the state of Minnesota without his parole officer’s permission. The defendant was arrested in Denver pursuant to a fugitive charge under section 16-19-103, C.R.S. 1973, on July 5, 1978.

¶4 The defendant contends that the failure of Minnesota to state the underlying circumstances of the alleged parole violation renders the requisition documents insufficient. We disagree.

¶5 The offense for which the defendant is to be extradited is not the violation of parole. Rather, it is the substantive offenses of aggravated assault and escape, for which the defendant had not yet completed his sentence. Under such circumstances, all that is required is a record of conviction and a statement by the governor that the accused has violated his parole. Wynsma v. Leach, 189 Colo. 59, 536 P.2d 817 (1975). Gordon v. Cronin, 196 Colo. 418, 586 P.2d 226 (1978). Those documents were included in the material submitted to the officials in this state.

¶6 Accordingly, we affirm the order of the district court discharging the writ of habeas corpus.

/197/colo/227 · .json · Public domain