Williams v. Nelson
| Decision Date | 22 June 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 24528,24528 |
| Citation | 471 P.2d 600 |
| Parties | Landon R. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff in Error, v. William R. NELSON, Warden and Sheriff of the County Jail, and William L. Koch, Manager of Safety and Ex-Officio Sheriff of the City and County of Denver, Defendants in Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Walter L. Gerash, Gerash & Kaiser, Leonard E. Davies, Rudolph Schware, Denver, for plaintiff in error.
Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., John P. Moore, Deputy Atty. Gen., George DeRoos, Asst. Atty. Gen., James D. McKevitt, Dist. Atty., Gregory A. Mueller, Asst. Dist. Atty., Patricia W. Brittain, Deputy Dist. Atty., Denver, for defendants in error.
The plaintiff in error, Landon R. Williams, petitioned the district court for a writ of habeas corpus alleging he was being unlawfully detained in custody as a fugitive from the State of Connecticut. The petitioner had refused to waive extradition to Connecticut where he is charged with several crimes, including kidnapping and murder. Necessary requisition documents were filed in the district court. After hearing, the petition was denied and the trial court ordered the petitioner remanded to custody for rendition to the State of Connecticut.
Reversal of the district court's judgment is urged on the basis of several alleged errors and violations of the petitioner's constitutional rights during the course of the proceedings in the district court. We find that none of the actions of the district court violated any constitutional rights of the petitioner nor did any of its rulings involve reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment.
A similar hearing was held on another date and in another court on the petition of Rory B. Hithe, who was taken into custody with petitioner Williams as a fugitive from the State of Connecticut having been charged with the same crimes as petitioner Williams. This case and the Hithe case were consolidated for the purpose of oral argument in this court because of substantially similar and parallel assignments of error. See Hithe v. Nelson, Colo., 471 P.2d 596, announced contemporaneously with this opinion.
Since the assignments of error are the same and because they emanate from circumstances which are substantially similar to those in Hithe, we will not detail or discuss them in this opinion, but rather, refer the reader to the Hithe opinion which contains a detailed discussion and resolution of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hithe v. Nelson
...for the purpose of oral argument in this court because of substantially similar and parallel assignments of error. See Williams v. Nelson, Colo., 471 P.2d 600, announced contemporaneously with this Reversal of the district court's judgment is urged on the basis of several alleged errors and......
-
Dixon v. State
...proportion of the public is suffered to attend.") (internal quotation marks omitted, ellipses in St. Clair )); Williams v. Nelson , 172 Colo. 176, 178, 471 P.2d 600, 601-02 (1970) ("Being filled to capacity, it was undoubtedly true that some persons were thus prevented from attending the he......