*2 Before GREENWOOD, (On JJ. Law and Motion).
MEMORANDUM DECISION
PER CURIAM:
appeal by prisoner
This is an
in the Salt
County jail
Lake
from the district court’s
ently
and,
for writ
abandoned the first
denial
contention
сurrently being
held
corpus.
seeks to
extradition to the State of Idaho for
parole determination and his conviction.
Rеspon-
there.
violations
Utah and
provisions
Idaho have enacted
moved for
affirmance of
dents
the Uniform
Criminal Extraditiоn Act.1
denying appellant
order
a writ. Under
Regarding challenges to
10(a)(2)
we conclude
R. Utah
*3
ceedings
act,
under this
Utah Code Ann.
summary disposition appropriate
is
because
(1982) provides
77-30-20
that
§
appeal
and issues raised on
guilt or
of
innocеnce
the accused as
[t]he
by appellant are so
as to not
insubstantial
charged
the crime of
he
is
in
Accordingly, rеspon-
further
merit
review.
another
may
inquired
state
by
into
granted
motion is
the denial of
dents’
and
a
governor
any proceeding
or in
writ
accompanied
demand for extradition
In reviewing
propriety
of sum
by
charge
a
in legal
of crime
form ...
mary affirmаnce in this case we con
presented
shall have been
sidered,
sponte,
appeal
sua
whether this
is
nor, except
as it
be involved in iden-
subject
matter
of
within
tifying
person
held as
person
appeal
arising
Court as
out of an
from
chargеd with the crime.
extraordinary
“on
for
an order
Appellant contends his initial convic
conviction,
involving a criminal
ex
“pоssession
was for
of
tion
heroin” and not
capi
these
or
cept
heroin,”
“delivery of
as stated in Idaho’s
felony;
Code
tаl
...” Utah
Ann.
request
assuming
extradition. Even
78-2a-3(2)(g) (1988). This issue has not
§
underlying
impre
that
conviction was
by
party.
addressed
We
been
con
cisely stated,
precise description
ap
of
that we do
under
clude
have
pellant’s
of small
conviction is
moment here
78-2а-3(2)(g)
language
its
section
because
that,
there is
whatever
deliberately
sufficiently
in
is
and
broad to
offense,
his convicted
hе was released on
clude those cases where a criminal convic
parole and the basis for extradition is the
tion involved
corpus proceed
is
in a
habeas
parole.
of the
of
violation
terms
that
ing
extradition.
Appellant’s involvement with the Idaho
It is well settled that
justice system dates
criminal
back to at
conviction,
challenge of his Idaho
the validi
drug
lеast
when he was convicted of a
ty
there,
imprisonment
or his
Although appellant disputes
offense.
a parole violation are not matters which will
involvement,
portion of that
it is not dis-
by
be considered
the courts of this state.
1987,
puted
July 30,
that
impris-
on
while
Doran,
Michigan
282, 290,
v.
439 U.S.
Idaho,
parole
in
granted
by
oned
he was
530, 536,
(1978);
wholly briefing without merit. Full I would transfer this to the Utаh argument oral materially could not aid this Supreme Court for lack of their resolution. R. Utah this court. See R. Utah 4C. 29(a). Accordingly, based well-settled law, principles respon- we conclude that
dents are entitled to affirmance. appellant’s petition
The denial of for ha- corpus
beas GREENWOOD, JJ.,
concur.
ORME, Judge (dissenting): agree juris- cannot that this court has
diction over appeal. the instant do not