v. Apache (officer testified that standard procedures were followed and bulletins were sent to city of defendant’s last known address and to the National Crime Information Center); cf. State v. Murray (warrant should be promptly executed against a probation violator while location is known or could be known with due diligence and whose return is possible). Defendant argues that the only finding of record that bears on defendant’s fugitive status is in the state’s motion (requesting the issuance of a warrant for defendant’s arrest) and the order issued as a result of that motion, which expressly finds defendant to be a fugitive. The state concedes that the finding made in the order is not binding on defendant because the order was issued in ex parte proceedings. See State v. Apache (<HOLDING>). We agree with the state’s concession and
holding that the statutory requirement applies promptly after indictment not only after the attorney general has made a determination to seek the death penalty holding that issues not raised before the district court cannot be raised for the first time before this court holding that the judicial determination of fugitive status must be made only after the probationer has been found and brought before the court regardless of whether this occurs before or after the date on which probation was originally to have expired holding that a claim filed after the last date fixed for the filing of claims was not a covered claim and noting that the requirement in the statute that claims be presented before the filing deadline evidences an intent on the part of the legislature to provide a cutoff date after which the association is no longer obligated to accept claims holding that a court retains jurisdiction to determine fugitive status regardless of whether this occurs before or after the date on which probation was originally to have expired