Ex parte Leach, 45319
| Decision Date | 05 April 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 45319,45319 |
| Parties | Ex parte Clyde Lewis LEACH, Jr. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Kerry P. FitzGerald, Dallas, for appellant.
Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., and Robert Huttash, Asst. State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
This appeal is from an order of the court, after habeas corpus hearing, remanding appellant to custody for extradition to the State of Florida.
An extradition hearing was held and the warrant of the Governor of the State of Texas was admitted into evidence. Such executive warrant appears to be regular on its face and the introduction thereof is sufficient to make a prima facie case authorizing extradition of the person named thereon. Ex parte Swain, Tex.Cr.App., 471 S.W.2d 412; Ex parte Binette, Tex.Cr.App., 465 S.W.2d 373; Ex parte Clubb, Tex.Cr.App., 447 S.W.2d 185.
Appellant first complains that there is no showing that he is the same person charged in the State of Florida. No evidence was offered on this issue at the hearing. This court, in Ex parte Clubb, supra, stated:
A prima facie case having been established by the introduction of the Governor's Warrant, no further burden of proof as to the identity of the accused is in issue. Ex parte Binette, supra; Ex parte Harvey, Tex.Cr.App., 459 S.W.2d 853.
Next, complaint is made that the trial court erred in admitting the Governor's Warrant into evidence because the proper predicate had not been laid. Such contention is overruled. In Ex parte Kaufman, 168 Tex.Cr.R. 55, 323 S.W.2d 48, this court held that the Governor's Warrant was properly admitted into evidence over the objection that the petitioner therein had not been identified as the person named in the Governor's Warrant.
Finally, appellant complains that Article 784.06 of the Florida Statutes, F.S.A., is so general that it fails to state an offense. Whether appellant is guilty as charged, or whether the Florida statute is valid or invalid, is not for the courts of this state to decide. The constitutionality of such statute is for the courts of Florida and the Supreme Court of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Snyder v. State
...U.S. 541, 86 S.Ct. 1045, 16 L.Ed.2d 84 (1966).10 95 Idaho 137, 504 P.2d 810 (1972).11 Colorado Code § 22-1-4(4)(b).12 Ex parte Leach, 478 S.W.2d 471 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); Fisco v. Clarke, 243 Or. 466, 414 P.2d 331 (1966); In re Cooper, 5 Cal.3d 256, 3 Cal.Rptr. 140, 349 P.2d 956 (1960) cert. d......
-
Myer v. State
...an affirmative defense which by its nature has been ruled to be for the courts of the demanding state to determine. See Ex parte Leach, 478 S.W.2d 471 (Tex.Crim.App.1972). In addition, it is the position of Texas courts that they will not look behind the Governor's Warrant to the demanding ......
-
Ex parte Dumas
...out a prima facie case authorizing the remand of appellant to the custody of the Tarrant County Sheriff for extradition. Ex parte Leach, Tex.Cr.App., 478 S.W.2d 471; Ex parte Binette, supra; Ex parte Posey, Tex.Cr.App., 453 S.W.2d No motion for rehearing will be entertained nor filed by the......
-
Rodriguez v. State
...a challenge to the jurisdiction of the California court over him, may be made in the California courts. See Ex parte Leach, 478 S.W.2d 471, 472 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972) (declining to determine in extradition proceeding whether the charging statute was valid and holding that "[t]he constitutio......