Ex Parte Andrew Rodriguez ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                                  MEMORANDUM OPINION
    No. 04-10-00640-CR
    EX PARTE Andrew RODRIGUEZ
    From the Criminal District Court, Magistrate Court, Bexar County, Texas
    Trial Court No. 2010W0206
    Honorable Andrew Carruthers, Judge Presiding
    Opinion by:       Rebecca Simmons, Justice
    Sitting:          Karen Angelini, Justice
    Rebecca Simmons, Justice
    Marialyn Barnard, Justice
    Delivered and Filed: December 22, 2010
    AFFIRMED
    Andrew Rodriguez appeals the trial court’s order denying his application for writ of
    habeas corpus and granting an order of extradition. Rodriguez contends the rendition papers
    from the demanding state failed to comply with the statutory requisites and the State failed to
    prove that he was the individual named in the governor’s warrant. We affirm the trial court’s
    order.
    The introduction of a governor’s warrant, regular on its face, establishes a prima facie
    case authorizing extradition of the person named in the warrant. Ex parte Lekavich, 
    145 S.W.3d 699
    , 701 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2004, no pet.); Ex parte Smith, 
    36 S.W.3d 927
    , 928 (Tex.
    App.—San Antonio 2001, no pet.). In the instant case, Rodriguez does not dispute that a
    04-10-00640-CR
    governor’s warrant, regular on its face, was introduced into evidence by the State as State’s
    Exhibit No. 1. Once a governor’s warrant has been admitted into evidence, it is the petitioner’s
    burden to demonstrate it was not legally issued, it is not based on proper authority, or its recitals
    are inadequate. Ex parte 
    Lekavich, 145 S.W.3d at 701
    .
    In his first point of error, Rodriguez contends that the governor’s demand “merely asserts
    that the fugitive ‘violated the terms of his probation.’ It does not contain a recital that the
    fugitive had been found by a judicial authority to have ‘violated the terms of his probation.’”
    Under the circumstances of this case, the governor’s demand is only required to state that the
    person “has broken the terms of his . . . probation.” TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 51.13
    § 3 (West 2006). Moreover, the prima facie case established by the governor’s warrant can be
    bolstered by the supporting papers introduced as evidence. Ex parte Cain, 
    592 S.W.2d 359
    , 362
    (Tex. Crim. App. 1980). In this case, the supporting papers included an Order of the Court
    Vacating Stay of Imposition of Sentence signed by a trial judge in the demanding state. The
    order stated, “It appears from the foregoing that the defendant has violated the terms and
    conditions of said probation.” The order then annuls the stay of imposition of the sentence
    Rodriguez was previously granted and orders Rodriguez’s arrest. In view of the foregoing,
    Rodriguez’s first point of error is overruled.
    In his second point of error, Rodriguez asserts that the State failed to prove his identity as
    the person named in the governor’s warrant. Once an accused places identity in issue, the burden
    shifts back to the demanding state to show that the person being held for extradition is the
    identical person named in the warrant. Ex parte 
    Smith, 36 S.W.3d at 928
    . Identity need not be
    shown beyond a reasonable doubt. Ex parte Shoels, 
    643 S.W.2d 761
    , 762 (Tex. App.—San
    Antonio 1982, no pet.). Photographic evidence is sufficient to establish identity, Ex parte
    -2-
    04-10-00640-CR
    Nelson, 
    594 S.W.2d 67
    , 68 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979), as is fingerprint evidence. Ex parte 
    Smith, 36 S.W.3d at 928
    –29. In this case, the supporting papers included Rodriguez’s photograph,
    description, and fingerprints. An employee of the Bexar County Sheriff’s Office of Judicial
    Services Extraditions testified that the fingerprints in the supporting documents were compared
    to Rodriguez’s fingerprints when he was brought into the Bexar County jail. Moreover, the trial
    court reviewed the photographs and stated, “I find that the defendant is depicted in photographs
    contained on page 13 of State’s Exhibit No. 1.” Accordingly, the evidence was sufficient to
    identify Rodriguez as the person named in the governor’s warrant, and Rodriguez’s second point
    of error is overruled.
    The trial court’s order is affirmed.
    Rebecca Simmons, Justice
    DO NOT PUBLISH
    -3-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 04-10-00640-CR

Filed Date: 12/22/2010

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/16/2015