Summary
holding that appellate court will not pass on issues that have not been presented for determination in district court except in case of plain or fundamental error
Summary of this case from People v. KruseOpinion
No. 79SA161
Decided January 14, 1980.
Appeal by petitioner seeking review of the trial court's denial of her petition for writ of habeas corpus.
Affirmed
1. EXTRADITION AND DETAINERS — Issues Not Presented in Trial Court — Barred — Appellate Court — Plain Error — Negative. An appellate court will not pass upon issues which have not been presented for determination in the trial court except in the case of plain or fundamental error; a careful review of the record in instant case involving extradition proceedings reveals no plain or fundamental error.
Appeal from the District Court of the City and County of Denver, Honorable Henry E. Santo, Judge.
Gerash Springer, P.C., Walter L. Gerash, for petitioner.
J. D. MacFarlane, Attorney General, Richard F. Hennessey, Deputy, Mary J. Mullarkey, Solicitor General, John Daniel Dailey, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
The appellant is before this court seeking review of the trial court's denial of her petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, section 16-19-111, C.R.S. 1973 (now in 1978 Repl. Vol. 8). Two grounds for reversal of the trial court's judgment are asserted. She alleges that dismissal in the federal court of an unlawful flight to avoid prosecution charge constituted res judicata as to the present extradition proceedings. The appellant also alleges that the Governor's warrant was insufficient in that there were improprieties in the affixing of the state seal.
[1] The record reveals that neither of these arguments was ever presented in the trial court. It is fundamental that an appellate court will not pass upon issues which have not been presented for determination in the trial court except in the case of plain or fundamental error.
After a careful review of this record, we find no such error exists in this case. From this review, we comment also that the two grounds for reversal raised by the appellant are totally without merit.
Judgment affirmed.