Opinion
No. 28178
Decided June 11, 1979.
Extradition proceeding. Petitioner-appellant was arrested in Colorado and held for extradition to Pennsylvania. His petition for writ of habeas corpus was discharged and he appealed.
Affirmed
1. EXTRADITION — Probable Cause — Determination — Demanding State — Binding — Asylum State. A determination of probable cause by a neutral judicial office of the demanding state is binding upon the courts of the asylum state; thus, where complaint provided by state of Pennsylvania contained a statement by a Pennsylvania magistrate that "there is probable cause for the issuance of process," such statement is binding upon the courts of the asylum state; accordingly, the discharge of the writ was proper.
Appeal from the District Court of Arapahoe County, Honorable Edward C. Day, Judge.
Leonard M. Chesler, Earl S. Wylder, Michael V. Makaroff, for petitioner-appellant.
J. D. MacFarlane, Attorney General, David W. Robbins, Deputy, Edward G. Donovan, Solicitor General, John Daniel Dailey, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent-appellee.
[1] The petitioner-appellant was arrested in Colorado and held for extradition to Pennsylvania. He filed a petition in the trial court for a writ of habeas corpus alleging that the extradition request failed to establish probable cause that he committed the offenses with which he is charged. The trial court after hearing discharged the writ. We affirm its judgment.
In Michigan v. Doran, 439 U.S. 282, 99 S.Ct. 530, 58 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978), the United States Supreme Court held that a determination of probable cause by a neutral judicial officer of the demanding state is binding upon the courts of the asylum state. In the present case, the complaint provided by the state of Pennsylvania contains a statement by a Pennsylvania magistrate that "there is probable cause for the issuance of process."
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.