Ex parte Robinson

• Decision Date: 10 December 2014
• Docket Number: No. 04-14-00512-CR,04-14-00512-CR
• Parties: EX PARTE Antwaun Deon ROBINSON
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

EX PARTE Antwaun Deon ROBINSON

No. 04-14-00512-CR

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas

December 10, 2014

MEMORANDUM OPINION

From the Criminal District Court, Magistrate Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial CourtNo. 2014W0146

Honorable Andrew Carruthers, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice Marialyn Barnard, Justice Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

AFFIRMED

AppellantAntwaun Deon Robinson appeals the trial court's order denying his application for writ of habeas corpus and granting an order of extradition to Alabama.On appeal, Robinson raises two points of error, contending the trial court erred in denying his application and granting extradition because: (1) the rendition papers from Alabama, the demanding state, did not comply with the requirements of the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act; and (2) the State of Texas, the asylum state, failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove Robinson is the individual named in the extradition papers.We affirm the trial court's order.

BACKGROUND

The record establishes Robinson was convicted in Alabama of the offense of theft and, pursuant to a plea agreement, placed on probation.The State of Alabama claimed Robinsonviolated the terms of his probation and took refuge in Texas.Thereafter, the State of Alabama issued a warrant for Robinson's arrest, alleging "property crimes/probation violation" and sought to have Robinson extradited from Texas to Alabama.Robinson opposed extradition.Upon demand from the Governor of Alabama, the Governor of Texas issued a governor's warrant, ordering Texas law enforcement officials to arrest Robinson and deliver him to the sheriff's department in Coffee County, Alabama.After he was served with a copy of the governor's warrant, Robinson filed an application for writ of habeas corpus, contesting extradition.

The trial court held a hearing on Robinson's application.At the hearing, the State offered, and the trial court admitted into evidence, State's Exhibit 1, which included the governor's warrant and the State of Alabama's request for extradition with supporting documentation.The trial court also admitted into evidence, at the State's request, State's Exhibit 2, a copy of Robinson's Texas driver's license with accompanying identifying information.Robinson argued the governor's warrant and request for extradition were not valid and were insufficient to establish Robinson is the person named in the request for extradition.At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court denied Robinson's requested relief, ordering his extradition to Alabama.Robinson then perfected this appeal.

ANALYSIS

As noted above, Robinson raises two complaints on appeal.First, he claims the extradition documents are invalid, arguing the documents fail to comply with the statutory requirements of the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act.At the extradition hearing, Robinson also attempted to challenge the documents because there was a difference in case or cause numbers on certain documents.Second, Robinson contends the State failed to prove he is the individual named in extradition documents.

Standard of Review

We review a trial court's ruling on a writ of habeas corpus for an abuse of discretion.Ex parte Rodriguez, 378 S.W.3d 486, 489(Tex. App.—San Antonio2012, pet. ref'd)(citingKniatt v. State, 206 S.W.3d 657, 664(Tex. Crim. App.2006)).In conducting our review, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court's ruling.Id.

Application

The only manner to test the legality of a governor's extradition warrant is by filing an application for writ of habeas corpus.Ex parte Walker, 350 S.W.3d 417, 419(Tex. App.—Eastland2011, pet. ref'd)(citingEx parte Chapman, 601 S.W.2d 380, 382-83(Tex. Crim. App.1980));seeTEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 51.13, § 10(a)(West Supp. 2014).The United States Supreme Court has placed limitations on the function of asylum state courts in extradition proceedings.See, e.g., Cal. v. Super. Ct. of Cal., 482 U.S. 400, 408(1987);Michigan v. Doran, 439 U.S. 282, 289(1978).Specifically, the asylum court — the Texas courts in this case —may review only whether: (1) the extradition documents are facially accurate; (2)the appellant has been charged with a crime in the demanding state; (3)the appellant is the person named in the extradition request; and (4) whether the appellant is a fugitive.SeeDoran, 439 U.S. at 289;Walker, 350 S.W.3d at 419-20;Ex parte Lopez, 988 S.W.2d 788, 789(Tex. App.—San Antonio 1999, no pet.).

Robinson first contends the extradition documents failed to comply with the statutory requirements of section 3 of the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act.He begins by arguing the extradition documents are insufficient because they failed to include "fingerprints of the individual that the demanding state was seeking to have extradited from Texas" and "there was no 'mug shot' of the individual attached to the supporting documents that purported to identify the photo as oneof the individual that was sought by the demanding state."Section 3 of the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act states, in pertinent part:

No demand for the extradition of a person charged with [a] crime in another State shall be recognized by the Governor unless in writing . . . and accompanied by a copy of an indictment found or by information supported by affidavit in the State having jurisdiction of the crime, or by a copy of an affidavit before a magistrate there, together with a copy of any warrant which issued thereupon; or by a copy of a judgment of conviction or of a sentence imposed in execution thereof, together with a statement by the Executive Authority of the demanding State that the person claimed has escaped from confinement or has broken the terms of his bail, probation or parole.The indictment, information, or affidavit made before the magistrate must substantially charge the person demanded with having committed a crime under the law of that State; and the copy of the indictment, information, affidavit, judgment of conviction or sentence must be authenticated by the Executive Authority making the demand[.]

TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 51.13, § 3.A review of the statute establishes Robinson's argument is in error with regard to the need for fingerprints or an official mugshot.The statute requires neither fingerprint evidence nor a mugshot to support an extradition.In this case, the State introduced, and the trial court admitted into evidence without objection, State's Exhibits 1 and 2.State's Exhibit 1 included: (1) the Texas governor's warrant; (2) the request for extradition signed by the Alabama governor; (3) an application for extradition from Coffee County, Alabama; (4) a warrant for Robinson's arrest for violation of the terms of his probation, which was imposed after Robinson was convicted of theft; (5) a report by Robinson's probation officer detailing the probation violations; (6) a copy of the order of probation; (7) a copy of the indictment, indicting Robinson for the...