Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Cates v. Sullivan
Citations: 696 P.2d 322; 1985 Colo. LEXIS 389Docket: 84SA265
Court: Supreme Court of Colorado; February 25, 1985; Colorado; State Supreme Court
In the extradition case of Mark William Cates v. Patrick Sullivan, the Supreme Court of Colorado affirmed the lower court's denial of habeas corpus relief. Cates challenged the extradition based on three claims: inadequate evidence of identity, insufficient charges against him in Florida, and improper authentication of Florida's extradition documents. Cates was arrested in Arapahoe County for failing to appear on a drunk driving charge, where law enforcement identified him as a fugitive from Florida under the name "Thomas Martin McDonald," wanted for murder. The Florida governor issued a requisition for Cates' return, which included a capias, an indictment, and an affidavit detailing probable cause, naming him as "Thomas McDonald." The court found that a prima facie showing of identity was established, despite the discrepancy between names due to the use of "a/k/a" (also known as) in Cates' arrest documentation. The court noted that the inclusion of a photographic identification and description of McDonald in the extradition documents further supported the identity claim. Ultimately, the court ruled that the extradition documents met the legal requirements under the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, allowing for Cates' extradition to Florida. The district court recognized that the photograph from Florida documents closely resembled the petitioner, establishing a prima facie case of identity with the Arapahoe County fugitive documents. The petitioner claimed he was not "substantially charged" with a crime under section 16-19-104, arguing that the affidavit lacked evidence of premeditation or deliberation necessary for first-degree murder under Florida law. However, the indictment indicated that Thomas McDonald unlawfully killed Rhodatte Antone with premeditated intent, meeting the statutory requirements. The court determined that the indictment sufficiently charged a crime per section 16-19-104, and any objections regarding the charging document's sufficiency should be addressed in Florida courts. The petitioner’s argument regarding the authentication of documents was also rejected; the court cited Griffith v. Nelson, affirming that the extradition demand, signed by Florida’s governor and accompanied by certified documents, met legal standards. The petitioner did not contest the authenticity of the documents, leading to the conclusion that the extradition materials were properly authenticated. The district court's judgment was therefore affirmed.