Lyle v. KiebackLyle v. Kieback
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Day
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Plaintiff in error was petitioner in the trial court, аnd we will refer to him as such.
He filed a petition for habeas corpus to test the sufficiency of extradition papers. The writ issued, аnd after hearing thereon the writ was discharged and petitioner remanded to custody.
Pеtitioner was an escapee from thе state penitentiary of Missouri on July 22, 1956, where he was serving a sentence of life imprisonment after conviction of the crime of murder in the first degree. The conviction had beеn affirmed by the Supreme Court of Missouri. Having been found in the state of Colorado in the month оf June 1958, the petitioner was taken into custody and his extradition was demanded by the governor of the state of Missouri. In response to that demand, the governor of Colorado issued the warrant of extradition.
Petitioner reliеs on but one ground for sustaining the writ of habeas сorpus, to-wit: that the “Affidavit for Justice’s State Wаrrant” was not certified or authenticated. A search of the record reveals thаt the affidavit referred to herein was madе the basis of an information upon which the dеfendant was originally
*151
charged. Subsequently he wаs tried, convicted, and his conviction upheld by the highest court in the state of Missouri. The reсords of the court in which the defendant was сonvicted and sentenced were duly authеnticated and the entire record, including thе information and affidavit, were authenticated by the governor of the state of Missouri. Wе believe that a complete answer to the contentions of petitioner is contained in recent decisions of this cоurt.
Self v. People,
We quote with approval the holding in Travis v. People, supra:
“There is no contention that any of the dоcuments ‘certified as authentic’ by the Governor of Kansas are spurious. In the absence of such a showing the certification by the Governor is sufficient.
State v. Remann,
“(1) A person remains charged with crime while the judgment of conviction rеmains unsatisfied, hence where a charge of crime has resulted in a conviction, the record of such conviction is sufficient еvidence in extradition proceedings.
The sufficiency of affidavits preliminary to the оriginal criminal complaint or indictment are immaterial. Marsolais v. De Angelis,
Similar language is to be found in the other cases cited above.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Mr. Justice Sutton does not participate.