Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

468 S.W.2d 409

Ex Parte Collins

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Decided June 23, 1971

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · decided 1971-06-23

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently April 1973

5 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““Article 51.13, Sec. 3, Vernon’s Ann.C. C.P., permits extradition #upon an information ‘supported by affidavit.’ It is not necessary that the information be based upon an affidavit where, under the laws of a demanding state (properly shown), prosecution could be instituted on an information alone. An information together with an affidavit sworn to subsequently to the date of the information is sufficient to authorize extradition. Ex parte Peairs, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 243 , 283 S.W.2d 755 .””

quoted by 2 later decisions, including Ex Parte Bowman, Ex Parte Fontes

““No demand for the extradition of a person charged with crime in another State shall be recognized by the Governor unless in writing, alleging, except in cases arising under Section 6, that the accused was present in the demanding State at the time of the commission of the alleged crime, and that thereafter he fled from the State, and accompanied by a copy of an indictment' found or by information supported by affidavit in the State having jurisdiction of the crime, or by a copy of an affidavit before a magistrate there, together with a copy of any warrant which issued thereupon; or by a copy of a judgment of conviction or of a sentence imposed in execution thereof, together with a statement by the Executive Authority of the demanding State that the person claimed has escaped from confinement or has broken the terms of his bail, probation or parole. The indictment, information, or affidavit made before the magistrate must substantially charge the person demanded with having committed a crime under the law of that State; and the copy of indictment, information, affidavit, judgment of conviction or sentence must be authenticated by the Executive Authority making the demand ; provided, however, that all such copies of the aforesaid instruments shall be in duplicate, one complete set of such instruments to be delivered to the defendant or to his attorney.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Ex Parte Fontes

Relies on 162 Tex. Crim. 243 - Ex Parte Peairs · Ex Parte Posey · Ex Parte Starks

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1971-06-23

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1 OPINION

DOUGLAS, Judge.

¶2 This is an extradition proceeding in which appellant was remanded to custody for extradition to the State of South Carolina.

¶3 At the habeas corpus hearing the executive warrant was introduced into evidence. It recites that the appellant “stands charged by affidavit made before a magistrate together with a warrant before the proper authorities with the crime of housebreaking, grand larceny, receiving stolen goods, Sec. 16-332 Code of Laws of South Carolina.”

¶4 The warrant is regular on its face and made a prime facie case for extradition. Ex parte Starks, Tex.Cr.App., 464 S.W.2d 837; Ex parte Corley, Tex.Cr.App. 439 S.W.2d 668.

¶5 It is contended that since the documents offered in evidence show that a felony offense was charged and there is no showing that South Carolina authorizes a felony prosecution upon an information, he is entitled to be discharged.

¶6 No mention of an information appears in the record. It is not shown if the authorities of South Carolina expect to prosecute the appellant upon an information or by indictment.

¶7 Article 51.13, Section 3, Vernon’s Ann. C.C.P., provides that an individual may be extradited where he is charged in the demanding state with a felony by “an affidavit before a magistrate there, together with a copy of any warrant which issued thereupon.” These requirements have been met.

¶8 Even if the supporting papers in this case included an information along with the affidavit and warrant, the appellant would not be entitled to his release. See Ex parte Posey, Tex.Cr.App., 453 S.W.2d 833.

¶9*410 The appellant contends that since the affidavit is upon an information and belief, it is insufficient. He cites Ex parte Parker, Tex.Cr.App., 390 S.W.2d 774. There the Court stated:

“The information is not supported by affidavit or complaint and the supporting affidavit of the prosecuting attorney is upon information and belief only.”

¶10 As noted above, the demand for extradition is not based upon an information, but upon an affidavit with a warrant.

¶11 It is not necessary that an information be based upon an affidavit where, under the laws of a demanding state, prosecution could be instituted on an information alone. An information together with an affidavit sworn to subsequently to the date of the information is sufficient to authorize extradition. Ex parte Drennan, Tex.Cr.App., 461 S.W.2d 420; Ex parte Peairs, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 243, 283 S.W.2d 755.

¶12 Even if an affidavit in support of an information cannot be upon information and belief, such rule would not affect the present case. Here the requirements of an affidavit known as a complaint under our practice, and a warrant have been met.

¶13 The fact that the affidavit was based on information and belief does not invalidate the proceedings.

¶14 In Ex parte Corley, Tex.Cr.App., 439 S. W.2d 668, we wrote:

“An affidavit or indictment upon which a demand for extradition is based and its sufficiency as a criminal pleading, unless clearly void, will be left to the courts of the demanding state and not of this state.”

¶15 The appellant was substantially charged with a crime in the State of South Carolina. This is sufficient under Article 51.13, Section 3, supra.

¶16 The judgment remanding appellant to custody is affirmed.

ONION, P. J., concurs in the result.
/468/sw2d/409 · .json · Public domain