STATE v BRACKNEY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 12838 I N THE SUPREME C U T O T E STATE O MONTANA OR F H F 1975 THE STATE O MONTANA, F 1_ .> \ P l a i n t i f f andiippellant, -VS - EUYMOND LEE BRACKNEY, 7 / Defendant and Respondent. Appeal from: I 1 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 Filed : 't5Ay 2 1915 2 0 1975 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. t o t h e s t a t e prison. t o 8 years. O December 22, 1966, he was committed n O March 24, 1967, h i s sentence was amended n O May 25, 1970, he was r e l e a s e d on p a r o l e . n O Septemn 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. h e a r i n g was had b e f o r e t h e Honorable 1974. A Paul G. H a t f i e l d on June 1 7 , 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 photograph 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 , recommendat 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, 1947. R.C.M. 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 . W e 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 . papers. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t examined t h e 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
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
