Ex Parte Favor

406 S.W.2d 434, 1966 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 895
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas
DecidedOctober 5, 1966
Docket39712
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 406 S.W.2d 434 (Ex Parte Favor) 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 Favor, 406 S.W.2d 434, 1966 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 895 (Tex. 1966).

Opinion

OPINION

BELCHER, Commissioner.

This is an appeal from an order entered in a habeas corpus proceeding remanding appellant to custody for extradition to' the State of Louisiana.

At the hearing on the writ, the state introduced in evidence the executive warrant issued by the Governor of Texas. The warrant recites that appellant “stands charged by complaint, warrant, supporting papers before the proper authorities, with the crime of murder” committed in the State of Louisiana; and that the Louisiana demand for his return is accompanied by copies of said complaint, warrant and supporting papers.

The executive warrant of the Governor of Texas, which appears regular on its face, made out a prima facie case authorizing the remand of appellant to custody for extradition. Ex Parte Carroll, 171 Tex.Cr.R. 462, 351 S.W.2d 228; Ex Parte Fant, Tex.Cr.App., 400 S.W.2d 332.

*435 Appellant insists that the evidence is not sufficient to authorize extradition in that no indictment was included with the accompanying papers, and there was no evidence that a capital case could be prosecuted in Louisiana upon a complaint.

Section 3 of Art. 1008a, Vernon’s Ann. C.C.P., authorizes the Governor of Texas to grant extradition where the demand is accompanied by a copy of a complaint together with a copy of any warrant issued thereon. The failure to show that Louisiana could prosecute for a capital offense on a complaint is not here material. Ex Parte Stanley, Tex.Cr.App., 377 S.W.2d 650; Ex Parte Young, Tex.Cr.App., 397 S.W.2d 74.

The other contentions presented have been considered and they do not reveal error.

The trial court was authorized to conclude as he did and remand the appellant for extradition.

The judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.

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

Related

Ex Parte Blazier
435 S.W.2d 506 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1968)
Ex Parte Preston
434 S.W.2d 136 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1968)
Ex Parte Krarup
422 S.W.2d 173 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1967)
Ex Parte Thompson
420 S.W.2d 709 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1967)
Ex parte DeFoy
417 S.W.2d 168 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1967)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
406 S.W.2d 434, 1966 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 895, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ex-parte-favor-texcrimapp-1966.