. Norrod states:

“Appellant further argues that the extradition documents should not have been predicated on appellant’s alleged commission of the substantive crime of escape. Rather, he claims the extradition should have been based upon that alternate portion of the statute, C.R.S.1963, 60-1-3 [now section 16-19-104, C.R.S.1973], which allows extradition of a person who has escaped from confinement. He contends that since the extradition documents did not include a copy of the judgment of conviction or of the sentence imposed in execution thereof, the documents are insufficient. In answer, we merely point out that it is fundamental that the statutory grounds of section 60-1-3, which are required to be set forth in the form of demand for execution, are stated in the alternative. If any one ground is adequately set forth as required by the statute, then the demand is sufficient in form to authorize the execution of the personal demand.”