Ex Parte Gray

426 S.W.2d 241, 1968 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1005
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas
DecidedMarch 27, 1968
Docket41176
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 426 S.W.2d 241 (Ex Parte Gray) 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 Gray, 426 S.W.2d 241, 1968 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1005 (Tex. 1968).

Opinion

OPINION

MORRISON, Judge.

This is an appeal from an order entered in a habeas corpus proceeding remanding relator to custody for extradition to the State of Mississippi. Relator was convicted, sentenced and paroled in Mississippi for the offense of grand larceny. He is alleged to have violated the conditions of his parole and extradition is sought under Art. 51.13, Sec. 3, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P.

At the hearing the State introduced into evidence the Governor’s warrant, making out a prima facie case, and the requisition and supporting papers executed by the Lieutenant and Acting Governor of Mississippi. Among these papers were (1) the indictment upon which relator’s conviction was based, and (2) the judgment entered in relator’s cause in Mississippi.

Relator first contends that the judgment introduced by the State was not in fact a judgment, but rather was a “Certified Copy of Sentence”. We first note that while the document does contain such title, it also contains the heading “JUDGMENT”. The document also contains all essential elements of a judgment and sentence. We note further that Art. 51.13, supra, provides that either “a copy of a *242 judgment of conviction or of a sentence imposed in execution thereof” will suffice to support extradition of a convicted fugitive accused of breaking the conditions of his parole.

Relator next contends that the indictment supporting the conviction giving-rise to this cause is defective in that it does not specifically allege the precise date of the commission of the offense charged, but alleges only the month and year.

The question of the validity of the indictment is for the Courts of Mississippi and not for this Court.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Related

Ray Zepeda Sanchez Jr. v. State of Texas
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2011
Stelbacky v. State
22 S.W.3d 583 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2000)
Spatola v. United States
741 F. Supp. 362 (E.D. New York, 1990)
Ex parte McConnell
726 S.W.2d 632 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1987)
State ex rel. Wright v. Dunn
624 S.W.2d 671 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1981)
Ex Parte Smith
624 S.W.2d 671 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1981)
Ex Parte Robbins
575 S.W.2d 27 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1978)
Wilkins v. State
528 S.W.2d 382 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1975)
Bryan v. Conn
530 P.2d 1274 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1975)
Ex Parte Gideon
493 S.W.2d 156 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1973)
Ex parte Brown
450 S.W.2d 647 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1970)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
426 S.W.2d 241, 1968 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1005, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ex-parte-gray-texcrimapp-1968.