Ex parte Foskett
Decision Date | 31 March 1965 |
Docket Number | No. 37970,37970 |
Citation | 390 S.W.2d 273 |
Parties | Ex parte Almond G. FOSKETT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Robert A. (Bob) Heath, Henry Sanchez, Houston, for appellant.
Frank Briscoe, Dist. Atty., Carl E. F. Dally and Ripley E. Woodard, Jr., Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, and Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
BELCHER, Commissioner.
This is an appeal from an order issued a habeas corpus proceeding remanding appellant to custody for extradition to the State of Michigan.
On the hearing of the writ the state introduced in evidence the executive warrant issued by the Governor of Texas which appears regular on its face. It made out a prima facie case authorizing the remand of appellant to custody for extradition. Ex parte Hoover, 164 Tex.Cr.R. 251, 298 S.W.2d 579.
Appellant contends that the trial court erred in refusing his offer in evidence of the authenticated copies of the supporting papers accompanying the governor's warrant, and again erred in refusing his request for a continuance in order to obtain authenticated copies of such papers for his use in rebutting the prima facie presumption that he was subject to extradition. Further, he contends that the trial court erred in remanding him because his testimony, the testimony of his witnesses, and the complaint upon which the governor's warrant is based defeats the prima facie case by showing that he was not in the demanding state at the time of the commission of the crime, or that he thereafter fled from the state.
In his brief it is insisted by the appellant 'that the Trial Court erred in remanding the Appellant for extradition to the State of Michigan, since the State was never able to establish a prima facie case, as the testimony of Appellant and of his witnesses plus the record clearly and uncontradictedly show that the Appellant was not a fugitive from justice and the subject of extradition.'
In support of his contention, appellant points out in Relator's Exhibit D-17, page 112, the pertinent part of the complaint upon which this proceeding is based, which pertinent part reads as follows:
'The Complaint, on oath and in writing of Donovan Neville taken and made before Basil F. Baker, a Municipal Judge of the City of Flint, in said County, upon the 3rd day of June, A. D., 1964, who being duly sworn, says that heretofore, to wit, on the 9th day of January, A. D. 1946, at the city of Flint, and in the County aforesaid Almon Foskett, having been charged with the offense of leaving the State while in arrears in child support, a felony, and the case of the People of the State of Michigan versus Almon Foskett, Case No. 17996 charging the said Almon Foskett with leaving the State while in arrears in child support, a felony, having been set for trial on January 9, 1962, before Donn D. Parker, Circuit Judge, for Genesee County, Michigan, the said Almon Foskett did unlawfully and feloniously abscond from the County of Genesee and from the State of Michigan, and as a result the bail bond in the amount of Two Thousand ($2,000.00) Dollars insuring the appearance of said Almon Foskett at the said trial was forfeited by the said Judge Donn D. Parker, contrary to the form of the Statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the People of the State of Michigan, wherefore the said Donovan Neville prays that the said Almon Foskett may be apprehended, and held to answer this complaint, and further dealt with in relation to the same as law and justice may require.'
The statute of the State of Michigan defining the offense here charged is as follows:
The governor's warrant recites that appellant is charged in the State of Michigan with the crime of absconding and forfeiting bond where a felony is charged.
On cross-examination the appellant testified as follows:
The...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ex parte McConnell
...here. See generally Ex parte Horsley, 460 S.W.2d 906, 907 (Tex.Crim.App.1970). Appellant also directs our attention to Foskett v. State, 390 S.W.2d 273 (Tex.Crim.App.1965), claiming it pertains to his attack on the allegedly impossible date contained in the indictment's third count. That ho......
-
Ex parte Fant
...introduced in evidence. It made out a prima facie case authorizing the remand of appellant to custody for extradition. Foskett v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 390 S.W.2d 273. From this point, the burden was upon appellant to overcome the prima facie proof of the existence of every fact which the Tex......
-
Ex parte Sanders, 39721
...it was necessary that the requisition upon which the Governor of Texas issued the extradition warrant be introduced. Foskett, Ex Parte, Tex.Cr.App., 390 S.W.2d 273. The judgment is ...