Opinion
No. 11-08-00236-CR
Opinion filed October 16, 2008. DO NOT PUBLISH. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
On Appeal from the 39th District Court, Haskell County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 11,572.
Panel consists of: WRIGHT, C.J., McCALL, J., and STRANGE, J.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This is an appeal pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 31 from the trial court's order denying Robert Charles Simmons's application for writ of habeas corpus seeking to prevent his extradition to California. We affirm. At the hearing, the State introduced the Texas Governor's warrant stating that Simmons was a fugitive from the State of California and was charged with offenses of robbery, grand theft, and hit and run. The California Governor's requisition and supporting documents were also introduced. No objections were made. Counsel for Simmons argued that there had been a lack of due diligence in extraditing Simmons because Simmons had previously been "in custody in 2007," that "the warrant [was] not legally issued," and that "[w]e are not arguing identity." The trial court found that the extradition papers were in order, that Simmons was the same person named in the extradition papers, that Simmons had been charged with committing crimes in California, and that Simmons was in the custody of the Haskell County Sheriff's Department. The trial court then denied Simmons's application for writ of habeas corpus and ordered that Simmons remain in custody for the purposes of being delivered to the designated agents of the State of California. In his sole issue on appeal, Simmons argues that California did not use due diligence in pursuing the governor's warrant. That issue was not before the trial court and is not before this court now. In Michigan v. Doran, 439 U.S. 282, 289 (1978), the Supreme Court stated:
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.See also Ex parte Potter, 21 S.W.3d 290, 297 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000). The issue is overruled. The record before this court supports the trial court's findings and order. The order of the trial court is affirmed.