State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Gilbert Levi Phillips, Defendant, Bartsch Bail Bonds, Appellant.

may not be cited except as provided by

Minn. Stat. § 480 A. 08, subd. 3 (1996).

 STATE OF MINNESOTA

 IN COURT OF APPEALS

 C6-97-724

State of Minnesota,

Respondent,

vs.

Gilbert Levi Phillips,

Defendant,

Bartsch Bail Bonds,

Appellant.

 Filed December 9, 1997

 Reversed and remanded

 Toussaint, Chief Judge

Stearns County District Court

File No. KX953738

Hubert H. Humphrey, III, Attorney General, 102 Capitol Building, Aurora Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55155 (for respondent)

Roger S. Van Heel, Stearns County Attorney, Richard J. May, Assistant Stearns County Attorney, 705 Courthouse Square, Room 448, St. Cloud, MN 56303 (for respondent)

Michael J. Michalski, PO Box 393, St. Cloud, MN 56302 (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Randall, Presiding Judge, Toussaint, Chief Judge, and Thoreen, Judge. **

Retired judge of the district court, serving as judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.

 U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N

 TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge

Gilbert Levi Phillips was wanted in North Dakota on two counts of theft of property. Phillips also had a DUI charge and a receiving stolen property charge pending in Stearns County. On November 2, 1995, Ranger Insurance Company, through Bartsh Bail Bonds, issued a $10,000 appearance bond on the extradition matter. Phillips appeared on the Stearns County charges on July 26, 1996, and at that time waived extradition.

After Phillips waived extradition, the district court released him on bond after Phillips agreed to appear in North Dakota voluntarily on the theft charges. When Phillips failed to appear in North Dakota, or at his September 9, 1996, Stearns County court date, the district court, upon motion by the county attorney, reactivated the extradition file and forfeited the bond. The district court denied Bartsh's motion to reinstate and discharge the bond. This appeal followed. Because the Extradition Bond Clause provides that a court does not have discretion on an extradition proceeding, the district court erred in releasing Phillips on bond after he waived jurisdiction, we reverse and remand.

 D E C I S I O N

The construction of a statute is a question of law and therefore fully reviewable by an appellate court. Hibbing Educ. Ass'n v. Public Employment Relations Bd., 369 N.W.2d 527, 529 (Minn. 1985).

Extradition is a "summary and mandatory executive proceeding." Michigan v. Doran, 439 U.S. 280, 288, 99 S. Ct. 530, 535 (1978). State courts are bound by the Extradition Clause, U.S. Const. art. IV, § 2, cl.2, and where adopted the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (hereinafter "UCEA"). Id. The Extradition Clause affords "no discretion to the executive officers or courts of the asylum state." Puerto Rico v. Branstad, 483 U.S. 219, 227, 107 S. Ct. 2802, 2808 (1987).

Minnesota has adopted the UCEA, which provides that when an accused has charges pending in the asylum state the governor may surrender the accused upon demand of the executive of another state or hold the person until the charges in the asylum state have been resolved. Minn. Stat. § 629.19 (1996).

If an accused is out on bail after waiving extradition, the governor may be unable to meet his constitutional obligation to deliver the accused when the demanding state's authorities arrive. See Minn. Stat. § 629.02 (1996); (requiring governor to arrest and deliver fugitives charged with crimes in another state) In re Ford, 468 N.W.2d 260, 263 (Mich.App. 1991). That is exactly what happened in this case. Because Phillips was released on bail the governor could not perform his constitutional duty to deliver the fugitive.

The state argues on appeal that because the bond was issued on a fugitive warrant it did not terminate until Phillips appeared before the North Dakota trial court on the charges pending there. But, the extradition file was closed when Phillips waived extradition. On September 11, 1996, the assistant county attorney asked the district court to reactivate the extradition file and forfeit the bond. Phillips' waiver of extradition therefore, conclusively determined that Phillips was a fugitive from North Dakota, and the bond should have been discharged at that time. Because the extradition clause provides the courts with no discretion in an extradition proceeding, the district court erred when it released Phillips on bond after he waived extradition.

  Reversed and remanded.