Opinion
No. 05-04-00442-CR
Opinion Filed May 21, 2004. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex.R.App.P. 47.
On Appeal from the 15th Judicial District Court, Grayson County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 051322. Affirmed.
Before Justices FITZGERALD, RICHTER, and LANG.
OPINION
Larry Dewayne Buckhannon filed an application for writ of habeas corpus seeking to avoid extradition to Oregon. Following a hearing, the trial court denied appellant the relief requested. In two points of error, appellant complains the trial court erred in denying him relief because appellant was never arraigned on the charges after his arrest and he was not timely served with the Governor's Warrant for extradition. We affirm the trial court's order. Only four issues may be raised by application for writ of habeas corpus. They are whether: (1) the extradition documents on their face are in order; (2) the petitioner has been charged with a crime in the demanding state; (3) the petitioner is the same person named in the request for extradition; and (4) the petitioner is a fugitive. See Michigan v. Doran, 439 U.S. 282, 289 (1978). A Governor's Warrant that is regular on its face is sufficient to make a prima facie case authorizing extradition. See Ex parte Moore, 436 S.W.2d 901, 902 (Tex.Crim.App. 1968); Ex parte Johnson, 651 S.W.2d 439, 440 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1983, no pet.). The burden then shifts to the petitioner to show the warrant was not legally issued, that it was issued on improper authority, or that the recitals in the warrant are inaccurate. Ex parte Cain, 592 S.W.2d 359, 362 (Tex.Crim.App. 1980) (op. on reh'g). This can be done by the supporting papers introduced at the hearing. See id. Appellant does not challenge the validity of the Governor's Warrant or supporting documents, nor does he deny he is the person named in the documents. Rather, he complains of deficiencies in procedures following his arrest in Texas. In his first point, appellant complains he was never arraigned after his arrest on the Oregon warrant and "no complaint under oath or resulting warrant reciting the accusation was ever made or issued against" him. The issuance of a valid Governor's Warrant renders moot any complaint arising from confinement under a fugitive warrant, including detention in excess of the statutory period. See Ex parte Worden, 502 S.W.2d 803, 805 (Tex.Crim.App. 1973); Echols v. State, 810 S.W.2d 430, 431 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1991, no pet.). We decide appellant's first point of error adversely to him. In his second point of error, appellant asserts that since he was not "legally and properly served with the Governor's Warrant as required by law," the trial court should have granted him relief. There is no requirement that the Governor's Warrant be served upon a petitioner who has filed an application for writ of habeas corpus seeking to defeat extradition prior to a hearing thereon where he has made no request or demand for the warrant. See Ex parte Posey, 453 S.W.2d 833, 835 (Tex.Crim.App. 1970). The record contains no evidence that appellant ever requested the warrant before the hearing. The record does show, however, that appellant and his attorney had copies of the documents before the March 30, 2004 hearing. Appellant had no complaints regarding the contents of the warrant and admitted he was the person named in the documents. We decide appellant's second point of error adversely to him. We affirm the trial court's order denying appellant the relief sought by his application for writ of habeas corpus.
See generally Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 51.13 (Vernon Supp. Pamph. 2004) (Uniform Criminal Extradition Act).