Ex parte Terranova, 32564
| Decision Date | 07 December 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 32564,32564 |
| Citation | 341 S.W.2d 660,170 Tex.Crim. 445 |
| Parties | Ex parte Charles S. TERRANOVA. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Guinn, Guinn & Truex, by Al Truex and Ernest Guinn, El Paso, for appellant.
William E. Clayton, Dist. Atty., Edwin F. Berliner, First Asst. Dist. Atty., El Paso, and Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
DICE, Commissioner.
This is an appeal from an order entered in a habeas corpus proceedings remanding appellant to custody for extradition to the State of California.
At the hearing, the State introduced into evidence the executive warrant of the acting Governor of this State and the requisition and supporting papers of the Governor of California.
The Governor's executive warrant recites that it has been made known to him by the Governor of the State of California that appellant 'stands charged by complaint and supporting papers before the proper authorities, with the crime of burglary committed in said State,' and that he had taken refuge in this State.
Appellant insists that the court erred in denying his petition for release from custody because the requisition papers failed to comply with the requirements of the extradition laws of the State of Texas and of the United States.
It is first contended that the affidavit and complaint upon which the requisition was issued is insufficient because it was shown to have been made upon information and belief.
The complaint is shown to have been sworn to and subscribed by R. L. Guardado before the Presiding Judge of the Municipal Court of Citrus Judicial District, County of Los Angeles, State of California.
A reading of the complaint shows that the affiant Guardado swore to the same 'on oath' and without any limitation. The complaint, being positive in its terms, could not be impeached by proof that the complainant acted on information and belief. Ex parte Kinsloe, 134 Tex.Cr.R. 299, 115 S.W.2d 955, and Ex parte Blankenship, 158 Tex.Cr.R. 667, 259 S.W.2d 208.
It is next contended that the affidavit and complaint failed to substantially charge appellant with a crime.
The complaint was in two counts and charged appellant with the offense of burglary in violation of Section 459 of the Penal Code of the State of California. Count one charged that appellant 'did wilfully enter the market and building occupied by Hiram's Market, 2630 East Workman in the City of West Covina, County and State aforesaid, with the intent then and there and therein unlawfully and feloniously to commit * * * forgery, a felony.'
The second count of the complaint contained a similar allegation.
Section 459 of the Penal Code of the State of California, a copy of which is shown in the record, reads, in part, as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rentz v. State, A14-92-00136-CR
...on that issue in the asylum state. Michigan v. Doran, 439 U.S. 282, 290, 99 S.Ct. 530, 536, 58 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978); Ex parte Terranova, 341 S.W.2d 660, 662 (Tex.Crim.App.1960) (citations omitted) ("In determining whether extradition is proper, the merits of the charge or the guilt of the acc......
-
Mays v. Shields
...3 Finding no substantial irregularity in the extradition proceedings, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. 1 Ex Parte Terranova, 170 Tex.Cr.R. 445, 341 S.W.2d 660 (1960). Cf., Hayes v. O'Connell, 263 S.W.2d 66 (Mo.App.1953); Levine v. Warden of Women's Prison, 188 Misc. 307, 64 N.Y.S.......
-
Rodriguez v. State
...of such statute is for the courts of Florida and the Supreme Court of the United States to decide"); Ex parte Terranova, 341 S.W.2d 660, 662 (Tex. Crim. App. 1960) ("Indetermining whether extradition is proper, the merits of the charge or the guilt of the accused cannot be inquired into.");......
-
Ex parte Green, 41825
...belief only. Ex parte Harris, Tex.Cr.App., 389 S.W.2d 668; Ex parte Blankenship, 158 Tex.Cr.R. 667, 259 S.W.2d 208; Ex parte Terranova, 170 Tex.Cr.R. 445, 341 S.W.2d 660. The case last cited is also authority against appellant's contention that the affidavit upon which no signature appears ......