CITY OF MCALLEN, TEXAS v. MANUEL TRIGO, JR. AND LYDIA CANTU--Appeal from 370th District Court of Hidalgo County

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Texas » 13th District Court of Appeals » 2006 » CITY OF MCALLEN, TEXAS v. MANUEL TRIGO, JR. AND LYDIA CANTU--Appeal from 370th District Court of Hidalgo County

State: Texas

Court: Texas Northern District Court

Docket No: 13-04-00344-CV

Case Date: 12/14/2006

Plaintiff: CITY OF MCALLEN, TEXAS

Defendant: MANUEL TRIGO, JR. AND LYDIA CANTU--Appeal from 370th District Court of Hidalgo County

Preview:Ex Parte Dewalter Mitchell--Appeal from Criminal District Court, Magistrate Court of Bexar County
No. 04-02-00533-CR EX PARTE DeWalter MITCHELL From the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2002-W-0044 Honorable Bill M. White, Judge Presiding (1) Opinion by: Alma L. L pez, Justice Sitting: Alma L. L pez, Justice Paul W. Green, Justice Karen Angelini, Justice Delivered and Filed: December 31, 2002 AFFIRMED DeWalter Mitchell ("Mitchell") appeals the trial court's order denying his application for writ of habeas corpus challenging his extradition to California. In three points of error, Mitchell contends: (1) he was arrested in violation of article 14 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure; (2) the evidence is insufficient to prove he is a fugitive; and (3) the Governor's warrant was not properly authenticated. We affirm the trial court's order. In his first point of error, Mitchell contends that he was arrested in violation of article 14 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure because the record does not contain any proof that his arrest was supported by probable cause; therefore, his detention pending the issuance of the governor's warrant was illegal. Mitchell did not raise this issue before the trial court. Accordingly, the issue has not been preserved for our review. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a). In addition, once the governor has granted extradition, a court considering release on habeas corpus can do no more than decide (a) whether the extradition documents on their face are in order; (b) whether the petitioner has been charged with a crime in the demanding state; (c) whether the petitioner is the person named in the request for extradition; and (d) whether the petitioner is a fugitive. Michigan v. Doran, 439 U.S. 282, 289 (1978); Ex parte Potter, 21 S.W.3d 290, 294 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). Therefore, even if properly preserved, Mitchell's complaint regarding the validity of his arrest is not an issue that we would be permitted to consider on appeal. In his second issue, Mitchell contends that the evidence is insufficient to prove that he is a fugitive. A person is a fugitive if the person is not present in the state in which he has been charged with a crime when he is wanted to answer the charge. Ex parte Carroll, 152 Tex. Crim. 581, 216 S.W.2d 580, 581 (1949); Ex parte Crane, 115 Tex. Crim. 168, 29 S.W.2d 357, 358 (1930). In this case, the evidence showed that Mitchell was charged with the offense of "threatening to commit a crime" in California and was not present in that state when he was sought to answer the accusation. This evidence is sufficient to prove that Mitchell is a fugitive. In this third issue, Mitchell contends that the Governor's warrant was not properly authenticated. Mitchell's complaint focuses on the authentication of the documents attached to the Governor's warrant. It is well-settled that a Governor's warrant regular on its face is sufficient to make a prima facie case authorizing extradition. Ex parte Lebron, 937 S.W.2d 590, 593 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1996, pet. ref'd). Article 51.13, Section 3 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure provides that no demand for extradition of a person charged with a crime in another state shall be recognized by the Governor of this State unless it is in writing and is accompanied by certain named documents which must be authenticated by the executive authority making the demand. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 51.13, 3 (Vernon 1979). Mitchell's complaint with regard to the authentication of the documents supporting the California
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/15716.html[8/20/2013 7:37:34 PM]

demand is without merit. See Ex parte Reagan, 549 S.W.2d 204, 205 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977). The opening paragraph of the requisition of the Governor of the State of California states, in part: WHEREAS, it appears by the annexed application for requisition and copies of First Amended Criminal Complaint for Extradition before a Judge and supporting papers, which I certify are authentic and duly authenticated in accordance with the laws of the State of California . . . . [emphasis added] "[T]his certification, which was signed by the Governor and Secretary of State of California and which bears the Great Seal of that State, was sufficient to authenticate all the supporting papers." Id. The trial court's order is affirmed. Alma L. L pez, Justice DO NOT PUBLISH 1. The Honorable Bill M. White signed an order referring the matter to the Honorable Andrew Carruthers, Criminal Law Magistrate, who presided over the hearing and entered the order denying relief.

file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/15716.html[8/20/2013 7:37:34 PM]

Download 15716.pdf