### TEXA S COU RT O F AP PEAL S, THIR D DISTRIC T, AT AU STIN NO. 03-00-00819-CR Ex pa rte R

ober t Austin

FROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 167T H JUDICIAL DIST RICT NO. GV-002907, HONORABLE MICHAEL LYNCH, JUDGE PRESIDING Robert Austin

appl ie d for a wri

t o f h abeas co r pu s s ee kin g t o pr ev en t his ex trad i ti on to Kansas. The wri

t issued a nd, af ter a hearin

g, the distri ct court deni

ed t he r elie f so ug ht . I n his o nly po intof error, Austin contends t hat a de lay in taking hi

m b efore a magi strat e denied h im due pro cess of l aw. SeeU. S. Co nst . ame nd . XI V. We will a ffir m.

The go ve rno r ’s ex t r ad it io n warran t was issued on J une 5 , 2 000 . Ac co rd ing t o t he t es t imo ny, appella

nt was i ncarcerated i

n Travis County on J

une 16, 200 0, t o s er ve sentence s i mposed in unrelated Te xas p ro sec ut ions. Appe llantrecei ved a copy

of the extradi

tion warrant on June

20. Appe llantco mple t ed his Te xas se nt ence s o n Sep t ember 2 9, 200 0, aft er which he c ont inued t o be he ld ont he ex tradi tion warra nt. He wastaken

be f ore a j udge

and adv i sed of h i s ri ghts regar d in g ex trad i ti on on October 9, 2 000. SeeTex. Code Crim. Proc. An n. art. 51.13, § 10 (West 1979). He su bse qu en t ly

filed his hab eas corp

usap pl i ca ti on c om pl ai ni ng of the de l ay be twe en the ex pi rati on of his Texas sen

tences on Septemb er 29 and the October 9 appear an ce be fo r e t he jud ge . I n his t es t imo ny a t t he he ar ing , ap pe llan t di d n o t cla im t o ha ve be en ha r med by t his de lay.2 Ar t icle 51.13, section 10 provides t hat a pe rso n ar re st ed o n an ext ra dit ion wa rr ant

“ sh al l f i rs t b e ta ken f orth wi th bef ore a judge”to be ad

vised of h i s ri ghts . Id . Appel

l an t al so ref ers us to the statut ory requi rement t hat an a rrested person be taken bef ore a magi strate “without unn ece ssa ry del ay .” Tex . Code Cri

m . Proc. A

nn . arts. 14 .06(a), 1 5.17(a ) (We st Supp . 2001) . Appella n t ci tes n o au th ori ty h ol di n g th at a n y of th es e statu

tes i m pos es a s pe ci f i c ti me l i m i t wit hi n whi ch a person arrested on an extradition warrant must be taken bef ore a magi strate. Once t he gover nor of t he as ylum stat e has gr ant ed e xt ra dit ion, a co ur t co nsider ing releaseon habeas corpus is limit ed to a determ i na tion of w hether the ex

tradi tion docum en ts are fac ially i n orde r, whet her t he appl ic ant has b een ch arged with a

crim e i n the dem andi ng state, whether t he appli cant is the person named i n the request for extradition, and whether t he appli cant is a fugi tive. Michigan v. Doran , 439 U.S . 28 2, 2 88- 89 ( 197 8); State ex rel. Holmes v. Klevenhagen , 819 S. W.2 d 53 9, 543 (T ex. Cr i m . A pp . 19 91 ). Th e c our

t i s wi th out a uth ori ty t o co nsid er eq uit ab le i ssues d uri ng th e h ab eas corpus he ari ng. Holmes v. Klevenhagen , 819 S.W.2d at 543. Appe llantdoe s n

ot, a n d di d n ot b el ow, qu esti on t he reg

ul ari ty of the ex trad i ti on documents, his ide

ntity as the person ch

arged wi th a cri me i n K an sa s a nd na med i n th e e xtr adi ti on re qu est, o rhis status as a fugitive. On this reco rd, ther e is no basis f or distur bin

g t he district c our t’s order.3 The order is af

fi rmed.

__________________________________________

Davi d Puryear, Justice Bef ore Justices K

idd, B. A . Smi

th and Pury

ear Af fi rmed File d: May

31, 2001 Do No t Publis

h