Ex Parte Terranova

7 Citing cases

  1. Ex Parte Green

    437 S.W.2d 859 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969)   Cited 7 times

    The copies of the affidavits before a magistrate together with copies of the warrants issued thereon which accompanied the demand for extradition are sufficient to satisfy the requirement of Art. 51.13, Sec. 3, V.A.C.C.P. and to authorize the issuance of the extradition warrant. Where the complaint or affidavit is positive in its terms and substantially charges a crime, its sufficiency may not be impeached in an extradition case by proof that complainant in fact acted upon information and belief only. Ex parte Harris, Tex.Cr.App., 389 S.W.2d 668; Ex parte Blankenship, 158 Tex.Crim. 667, 259 S.W.2d 208; Ex parte Terranova, 170 Tex.Crim. 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 is insufficient.

  2. Mays v. Shields

    444 P.2d 949 (Or. 1968)   Cited 15 times
    In Mays v. Shields, 251 Or. 168, 444 P.2d 949 (1968), it was held that such an authentication fulfills the requirements of ORS 147.030.

    We regard this as an authentication of the supporting papers by the governor of Wyoming. The recital is to be interpreted to mean that since the governor regards the papers as "duly authenticated" he himself authenticated them and we hold therefore that the papers were authenticated as required by the statute. Ex Parte Terranova, 170 Tex Cr 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 NYS2d 337 (1946), affirmed 67 NYS2d 708 (1947); Ex Parte Paulson, 168 Or. 457, 124 P.2d 297 (1942).

  3. Ex Parte Cattes

    399 S.W.2d 543 (Tex. Crim. App. 1966)   Cited 2 times

    In such ruling the court was correct, as the merits of the charge against one held for extradition or the question of his guilt or innocence are not to be inquired into in a habeas corpus proceeding. Ex parte Terranova, 170 Tex.Crim. R., 341 S.W.2d 660; Ex parte Garcia, 167 Tex.Crim. R., 319 S.W.2d 328; Ex parte Cuttrell, 162 Tex.Crim. R., 288 S.W.2d 773. No brief has been filed on behalf of appellant.

  4. Ex Parte Harris

    389 S.W.2d 668 (Tex. Crim. App. 1965)   Cited 4 times

    Art. 1008a, Sec. 3, Vernon's Ann.C.C.P.; Ex parte Collier, Tex.Cr.App., 375 S.W.2d 444. The sufficiency of the complaint, as shown, cannot be impeached in this proceeding by proof that the complainant acted on information and belief. Ex parte Blankenship, 158 Tex.Crim. 667, 259 S.W.2d 208; Ex parte Terranova, 170 Tex.Crim. 445, 341 S.W.2d 660. The trial court was authorized to conclude as he did and remand the appellant for extradition.

  5. Rodriguez v. State

    NUMBER 13-18-00279-CR (Tex. App. Jul. 3, 2019)

    Any challenge to Rodriguez's prosecution under Article III, Section 2, Clause 3, which is essentially a challenge to the jurisdiction of the California court over him, may be made in the California courts. See Ex parte Leach, 478 S.W.2d 471, 472 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972) (declining to determine in extradition proceeding whether the charging statute was valid and holding that "[t]he constitutionality 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) ("In determining whether extradition is proper, the merits of the charge or the guilt of the accused cannot be inquired into."); Ex parte Lepf, 848 S.W.2d 758, 760 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi-Edinburg 1993, pet. ref'd) (holding that applicant's defense that the alleged crime in Texas with results in California could not have taken place could not be raised in extradition proceeding). We overrule Rodriguez's sole issue.

  6. Ex Parte Martin

    No. 14-03-00082-CR (Tex. App. Jun. 5, 2003)   Cited 1 times
    Holding an affidavit sworn before a superior court judge sufficient under article 51.13, section 3

    Additionally, Texas courts have held that complaints and affidavits containing averments "on information and belief" are permissible in extradition proceedings. See Ex parte Terranova, 170 Tex.Crim. 445, 341 S.W.2d 660, 661 (1960); Ex parte McClintick, 945 S.W.2d 188, 192 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1997, no pet.). Appellant's third issue is overruled.

  7. Rentz v. State

    833 S.W.2d 278 (Tex. App. 1992)   Cited 13 times
    Holding in part that where appellant was charged with sending package containing cocaine to co-defendant in state of Florida, it was not necessary for State to prove appellant was in demanding state at time of offense

    This argument fails, however, because once the governor of the asylum state acts on a requisition for extradition based on the demanding state's judicial determination that probable cause exists, no further judicial inquiry may be had 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 accused cannot be inquired into."). It is clear from the introduction of the documents that the State met its burden that there had been a judicial determination of probable cause.