Stobie v. Barger, 17226
| Decision Date | 22 March 1954 |
| Docket Number | No. 17226,17226 |
| Citation | 268 P.2d 409,129 Colo. 222 |
| Parties | STOBIE v. BARGER. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Kobey, Mitchell, McCarthy & Singer, Denver, for plaintiff in error.
Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., Frank A. Wachob, Deputy Atty. Gen., Robert S. Wham, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.
George J. Stobie, Jr. was arrested and incarcerated by Ray M. Barger, sheriff of Larimer county, by virtue of a warrant issued by Hon. Dan Thorton, Governor of the State of Colorado, pursuant to a requisition from the Governor of Indiana. Stobie sought his release by habeas corpus, but, upon hearing, was remanded to the custody of the sheriff. He brings the cause to this court by writ of error seeking a reversal of the judgment.
At the hearing on Stobie's application for release by habeas corpus, it was stipulated that he was not a resident or present in the State of Indiana when the crime was alleged to have been committed. In the requisition of the Governor of the State of Indiana it is charged:
Pursuant to the requisition, the Governor of the State of Colorado issued his warrant, wherein it is recited:
'Whereas, It has been represented to me by the Governor of the State of Indiana that George J. Stobie, Jr., stands charged with Non-Support a crime under the laws of the said State of Indiana committed in the County of Orange in said State, and that he has fled from the justice of the said State, and has taken refuge in the State of Colorado; and the said Governor of the said State of Indiana has, in pursuance of the Constitution and laws of the United States, demanded of me that I shall cause the said George J. Stobie, Jr., to be arrested and delivered to Ben M. Nadall and Wm. L. Thompson, who is authorized, as the agent of the said Governor of Indiana, to receive the said George J. Stobie, Jr., into his custody and him convey back to the State of Indiana:' (Italics ours)
Our Uniform Criminal Extradition Act was adopted in 1951, p. 411, c. 181, S.L.Colo.1951, and substantially reenacted by c. 117, p. 314, S.L.Colo.1953. An examination of these two chapters will disclose that no material change whatever was made in sections 3, 6 and 7 of the 1951 act, supra, being the only sections in either chapter necessary for our consideration in the determination of this cause, so that it is immaterial under which of said chapters this action is determined.
It should be noted that in the requisition under which the Governor of the State of Colorado might act, Stobie was charged with 'committing acts in the State of Colorado intentionally resulting in a crime in the State of Indiana, to wit: Non-Support of a minor child.' The Governor of the State of Colorado issued his warrant reciting that Stobie 'stands charged with Non-Support a crime under the laws of the said State of Indiana committed in the County of Orange in said State, and that he has fled from the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson v. Burke
...as surplusage in a proceeding under the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act.The Colorado case cited by appellant (Stobie v. Barger, 1954, 129 Colo. 222, 268 P.2d 409, 410), is not believed applicable to the case before us as the Governor's extradition warrant recited as his sole authority ther......
-
Hill v. Blake
...referring to him as a nonfugitive is ineffectual. Matthews v. People, supra, 136 Colo. 106-107, 314 P.2d 906; cf. Stobie v. Barger, 129 Colo. 222, 268 P.2d 409 (1954) (rendition warrant is void if accused is sought as a nonfugitive and sent as a fugitive). Inattention to certain technicalit......
-
State v. Booth
...the Uniform Act, the alleged fugitive will be discharged. Section 94-501-3; Russell v. State, 251 Ala. 268, 37 So.2d 233; Stobie v. Barger, 129 Colo. 222, 268 P.2d 409; Schriver v. Tucker, Fla.1949, 42 So.2d 707, 709; Ex parte Fritz, 137 N.J.Eq. 185, 44 A.2d 414, 416; Videan v. State, 68 Id......
-
Ex parte Harrison
...2 A.D.2d 235, 153 N.Y.S.2d 772 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1956); Ex parte Kaufman, 73 S.D. 166, 39 N.W.2d 905 (1949); and Stobie v. Barger, 129 Colo. 222, 268 P.2d 409 (1954). The rationale of these cases is that the laws of the United States and of the states impose a duty on the Governor of the asylum s......
-
Interstate Rendition Under the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act
...note 5. 40. C.R.S. 1973, § 14-6-101. 41. C.R.S. 1973, § 14-5-101 et. seq. 42. Matthews v. People, supra, note 26. 43. Stobie v. Barger, 129 Colo. 222, 268 P.2d 409 (1954). 44. Layher v. Van Cleave. 171 Colo. 465, 468 P.2d 32 (1970). 45. Id. 46. In Colorado, an assistant or deputy district a......