Opinion
No. 79SA183
Decided June 16, 1980.
Appeal from trial court's denial of a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act.
Affirmed
1. EXTRADITION AND DETAINERS — Failure — Governor's Personal Review — Warrant — Not Invalid. Alleged failure of governor to personally review requisition documents did not render governor's extradition warrant invalid.
2. APPEAL AND ERROR — Raised for First Time — Not Considered. Arguments raised for the first time on appeal would not be considered by the supreme court.
Appeal from the District Court of Jefferson County, Honorable Ronald J. Hardesty, Judge.
J. Gregory Walta, State Public Defender, Michael Heher, Deputy, for petitioner-appellant.
J. D. MacFarlane, Attorney General, Richard F. Hennessey, Deputy, Mary J. Mullarkey, Solicitor General, Anthony Marquez, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent-appellee.
This is an appeal from the trial court's denial of a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act. Section 16-19-101, et seq., C.R.S. 1973 (now in 1978 Repl. Vol. 8). The appellant raises three issues relating to the propriety of the extradition proceedings. He first challenges the validity of the governor's warrant due to the alleged failure of the governor to personally review the requisition documents. Secondly, he questions the sufficiency of the requisition documents from North Carolina used to support the warrant. Finally, he attacks the sufficiency of the proof of his identification as the person sought by the demanding state. We reject each of these arguments and affirm the trial court's denial of the petition.
[1,2] The appellant's first argument was not raised in the trial court; however, it was recently rejected by this court in Wittington v. Bray, 200 Colo. 17, 612 P.2d 72 (1980). We find no reason to elaborate further on the issue. Additionally, the remaining arguments have been raised for the first time on appeal, and thus will not be considered.
The appellant did challenge the sufficiency of the evidence of his identity in the trial court on a ground other than the primary thrust of his argument to this court. We note that this secondary ground is without merit. See Allen v. Cronin, 189 Colo. 540, 543 P.2d 707 (1975).
Judgment affirmed.