Ex parte Edwards

502 S.W.2d 148, 1973 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 2048
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas
DecidedDecember 12, 1973
DocketNo. 47786
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 502 S.W.2d 148 (Ex parte Edwards) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ex parte Edwards, 502 S.W.2d 148, 1973 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 2048 (Tex. 1973).

Opinion

OPINION

DOUGLAS, Judge.

This is an appeal in a habeas corpus proceeding. Edwards was remanded to custody for extradition to the State of Iowa.

The Warrant of the Honorable Dolph Briscoe, Governor of Texas, was introduced. It recites that Edwards was charged by “information, Supporting Affidavit and Warrant” with the crime of “Robbery With Aggravation.”

Edwards contends that since the complaint supporting the information was signed some five weeks after the filing of the information, the Governor’s Warrant was void. He relies upon the law of Texas that a complaint must be filed before a conviction can be had. The same contention was made in Ex parte Peairs, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 243, 283 S.W.2d 755; and was overruled. See also Ex parte Ward, Tex. Cr.App., 470 S.W.2d 684, 686.

The appellant points out that the law of Arkansas was proved in the Peairs case but was not in the present. In Peairs, the fact that Arkansas provided for the prosecution of a felony by information was shown. At the time of that case a prosecution upon an information for a felony in Texas was not allowed.1

We follow our previous ruling in Ex parte Peairs, supra, that an affidavit in support of an information in an extradition proceeding may be filed after the information has been filed.

In Ex parte Bowman, Tex.Cr.App., 480 S.W.2d 675, it was written:

“The asylum state is not concerned with the sufficiency of the indictment, information or affidavit as a criminal pleading; this is a question to be determined by the demanding state. Ex parte Gore, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 128, 283 S.W.2d 69; [149]*14925 Tex.Jur.2d Extradition § 19 (1961). Similarly, appellant’s contention concerning the variance between the requisition and the information, as to the exact date of the offense, will also be left to the courts of the demanding state. Ex parte Heck, Tex.Cr.App., 434 S.W.2d 855; Benson v. State, 128 Tex.Cr.R. 72, 79 S. W.2d 122.”

The order denying relief is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Wood v. Leach
540 P.2d 1084 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1975)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
502 S.W.2d 148, 1973 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 2048, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ex-parte-edwards-texcrimapp-1973.