Ex Parte Oxford

249 S.W.2d 917, 157 Tex. Crim. 512, 1952 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1869

Opinions

MORRISON, Judge.

This is an appeal from an order of the judge of the 81st Judicial District Court remanding appellant to the custody of the sheriff of Wilson County for delivery to the agent of the State of Oklahoma.

It is shown that appellant was arrested by virtue of a warrant of the Governor of Texas, which was predicated upon a demand of the Governor of Oklahoma, accompanied by authenticated copies of “criminal complaint, warrant and other papers” charging relator with the crime of “Deserting and Abandoning his Four Minor Children.”

The effective date of the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement Act, Article 2328b, Vernon’s Ann. Civ. St., and the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, Article 1008a, Vernon’s Ann. C. C. P., antedates the proceedings herein.

Appellant contends that the affidavits accompanying the requisition of the Governor of Oklahoma do not state that the relator is a fugitive from justice or that he was in the demanding state at the time of the commission of the offense charged.

Section 5 of the Support Act reads, in part, as follows:

“The provisions for extradition of criminals not inconsistent herewith shall apply to such demand although the person whose surrender is demanded was not in the demanding state at the time of the commission of the crime and although he had not fled therefrom. Neither the demand, the oath nor any proceedings for extradition pursuant to this Section need state or show that the person whose surrender is demanded has fled from justice, or at the time of the commission of the crime was in the demanding or the other state.”

We recently, in Ex parte Coleman, (Page 37, this volume), 245 S. W. (2d) 712, had occasion to discuss the same contention as here raised.

Believing that appellant’s extradition was authorized, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.