Ex Parte Strom

324 S.W.2d 224, 168 Tex. Crim. 130, 1959 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 2480

• Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
• Decided: March 25, 1959
• Docket: 30524
• Status: Published

Opinions

BELCHER, Judge.

This is an extradition case. The Governor of this state issued his executive-warrant based upon the requisition and supporting papers of the Governor of the State of California, authorizing the arrest, delivery and return of appellants to the State of California to answer a charge of robbery.

Appellants sought their discharge by writ of - habeas corpus filed in Criminal District Court of Dallas County, Texas. After a hearing appellants were remanded to the sheriff of Dallas County for delivery to the agents of the State-of California, and from said order they gave notice of appeal.

The Governor’s warrant was .introduced.in. evidence on the hearing and it recites sufficient facts necessary to the validity of its issuance; and such warrant when introduced in evidence becomes and. is prima facie evidence -that the accused is a fugitive from justice and is subject to be extradited. Art. 1008a, Sec. 7, Vernon’s Ann. C.C.P.; Delgado v. State, 158 Texas Cr. Rep. 52, 252 S.W. 2d 935; Ex parte Strongson, 160 Texas Cr. Rep. 457, 272 S.W. 2d 353.

It is insisted that the evidence on the hearing on the writ of habeas corpus shows that there was not a proper authentication by the Governor • of. California of the complaint and supporting papers because they were not transmitted with the demand in a single document connected by ribbon and seal, hence the certification in -the . demand did not comply with the law.

The original demand and the complaint and supporting papers as transmitted to the Governor of Texas are not shown in the record and there is no testimony showing the manner of their transmittal with reference to each other.

The statute does not provide for the manner in which such documents should be authenticated.

There is no showing of any errors among such documents that could have affected the rights of the appellants.- Therefore no error is shown.

Appellants contend that the issuance of the Governor’s warrant was not authorized because the complaint (affidavit) charging them with the crime of robbery and accompanying the demand- for extradition was not made before-a magistrate as required by Sec. 3 of Art. 1008a, Vernon’s Ann. C.C.P.

The record shows that the complaint (affidavit) charging the offense of robbery accompanying the demand was made before Francis M. Estudillo, and that he was at the time of the making and issuance of said complaint, the duly elected, qualified and acting judge of the Municipal Court, Riverside Judicial District, County of Riverside, State of California, and that he was acting in such capacity at the time of the execution of said complaint and was authorized under the laws of the State of California to administer oaths, take affidavits and issue complaints and warrants of arrest, which are the duties of a magistrate as prescribed by Art. 34, Vernon’s Ann. C.C.P. A warrant of arrest based upon said complaint was issued for the appellant and a copy thereof accompanies the demand.

The record furnishes a sufficient basis to authorize the conclusion that the complaint was made before a magistrate within the meaning and intent of the Texas and Federal statutes. Arts. 33 and 1008a, Sec. 3, Vernon’s Ann. C.C.P., and Title 18, Sec. 3182, U.S.C.A.

Appellants insist that the Governor’s warrant is fatally defective because it directs the arrest of two persons for extradition in a single warrant.

No authority is cited in support of appellants’ position. We know of none. No reason appears for the invalidation of the warrant.

Finding no reversible error the judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.