Committee commentary. — If a petition for writ of habeas corpus is filed, the grounds on which relief can be granted are very narrow. See Michigan v. Doran, 439 U.S. 282, 99 S. Ct. 530, 58 L. Ed. 2d 521 (1978) and New Mexico ex rel. Ortiz v. Reed, 524 U.S. 151, 118 S. Ct. 1860, 141 L. Ed. 2d 131 (1998). Questions relating to guilt or innocence, alibi, speedy trial, res judicata, and double jeopardy are not for the asylum state, but for the demanding state to determine after the defendant is returned. State v. Sandoval, 95 N.M. 254, 620 P.2d 1279 (1980). Even if arrest on a previous governor's rendition warrant was held to be illegal, that is not res judicata on whether a subsequent rendition warrant is proper. Id.; see generally Annot., "Discharge on Habeas Corpus of One Held in Extradition Proceedings as Precluding Subsequent Extradition Proceedings," 33 A.L.R.3d 1443.
The grounds stated here are generally those listed in Sandoval, which based them on Michigan v. Doran, 439 U.S. 282, 99 S. Ct. 530, 58 L. Ed. 2d 521 (1980). The issue of whether the extradition documents are "in order" has been restated for clarity. Sandoval and Doran are true fugitive cases. Since there are statutory grounds for extradition in addition to fugitive status, provision also is made for them in this rule. See also Colfax County Bd. of Commr's v. State of N.H., 16 F.3d 1107 (10th Cir. 1994) (a habeas proceeding cannot be transformed into an inquiry into the appropriateness of the demanding state's actions. "'Surrender is not to be interfered with by the summary process of habeas corpus upon speculations as to what ought to be the result of a trial in the place where the Constitution provides for its taking place.'" Id. (quoting Drew v. Thaw, 235 U.S. 432, 440, 59 L. Ed. 302, 35 S. Ct. 137 (1914)); Hopper v. State ex. rel. Schiff, 101 N.M. 71, 678 P.2d 699 (1984) (court may not look behind the charging documents to determine the applicability of the demanding state's criminal statute); State v. Sandoval, 95 N.M. 254, 620 P.2d 1279 (1980) (district court may not consider questions of res judicata or delays in the extradition hearing); and Bazaldua v. Hanrahan, 92 N.M. 596, 592 P.2d 512 (1979) (governor's warrant is prima facie evidence that the constitutional and statutory requirements have been met and fugitive must prove alibi beyond a reasonable doubt).
That the defendant's name is the same as the name of the person sought is prima facie evidence that the defendant is the person sought, even if the name is common. Wright v. Florida, 497 So.2d 1313 (Fla. App. 1986).
The petition is required to state the factual basis for the grounds alleged so that the prosecutor and demanding state will have a fair opportunity to prepare for the hearing on the petition. More specificity is required than for other motions in order to avoid needing extra time for discovery, so that the defendant can be delivered to the demanding state quickly if extradition is proper.
Notice to the agent of the demanding state is required by Section 31-4-10 NMSA 1978.
In general, conflicting evidence concerning a crime must be resolved in the state where the crime is charged, and extradition is proper. Bazaldua v. Hanrahan, 92 N.M. 596, 592 P.2d 512 (1979); accord, South Carolina v. Bailey, 289 U.S. 412, 53 S. Ct. 667, 77 L.Ed 1292 (1933) (alibi in another state).
