### In The C ou rt o f A p p ea ls Si x t h Appe l l at e Di st r i c t o f Te x as a t Te x ar ka na

______________________________ No . 0 6- 08 -0 00 19 -C R

______________________________

EX PARTE: CARL TON GREEN

O nA p p e a l f

r o m t h e C o u n t y

C o u rta tLaw II Gre g g County , Texas Trial Court No. 1531-H

B e f o r e M o r r i s s , C
. J. , C a

rt e r an d M o s e l e y , JJ. Memorandum Opinion by J ustice Carte rBe cause Texas law g ener ally require s judi ci al revie w of e x tradition proce eding s be 1 a c c omp lis he d w ith in a

n e xtre me ly

sh or t ti me pe ri od , we wi ll s us pe nd the Te xas R

ule s o f A pp e llate Procedur e re quiring a t we n t y -o n e day submissi on of the c ase be fore issuance of our opinion and, without necessity

of a State' s brief, c onsider the issues ra ised and issue our opinion in this case. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 2 (authority of appe llate cour

t to suspend appellate ru l es on court' s own motion); T EX . R. A PP . P. 39.9 (twenty -one- day notice to par

ties in advanc e of submission). 2 MEMORANDUM OPI

NI ON Carl ton Gr e e n a

pp e a ls the tr ia l c ourt ' s de nia l of his a pp lic a tio n f

or wr it o f h a

be a s c or pu s in
an u n derlying extradition proc eeding
. For the rea sons se t f orth below, we aff

irm the trial co u rt 's jud g me nt. 1 The re cord be fore us shows Gree n stands char g ed by i n fo rm ation with five diffe rent misdem eano r and

fe lony of fe ns e s in De Sot o Pa

ri sh , L ou isi ana . Sh or

tly a ft e r h is r e c e nt a

rr e st i n Gr e g g County , T e xas, po lic e le a rn e d G re e n w a s wa

nte d by L ou isi ana a s a

fu g iti ve re g ard ingtho se out-of-state char g es. Pursuant to the Uniform Criminal Ex tradition Act, se e ge ne ra lly T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . ANN . a

rt . 5 1. 13 (V e rn on

20 06 ), Te xas an d L ou isi ana of fi c ia ls be g an co or din a tin g the ir
e ff or ts t o r e tur n G re e n to L ou isi ana

to f a c e tho se ou t- of

-s ta te c ha rg e s. Gr e e n s ub se qu e ntl y

fi le d a n a pp lic a tio n f

or wr it o f h a

beas c or pu s to c ha lle ng e the se extradition efforts. See T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . ANN . art. 51.13, § 10. The trial c ourt conduc ted a he ari ngon

Gr e e n' s h a

be a s a pp lic a tio n a

nd , a ft e r r e c e ivi ng e vid e nc e and c on sid e ri ngthe argume nts of attorne y s for Gr een a

nd the Sta t e o f T ex as, denied Gree n' s habea s application and a pproved Gr e e n' s e xtra dit ion . G re e n n owa pp e a ls.3

Th e so le purp os e of

ha be a s c or pu s re vie w of

an e xtra dit ion

pr oc e e din g " is t o te st t

he le g a lity
o f t he ex tr adi ti on pro ceedi ngs. " Ex parte Ge ringer , 7 7 8 S
. W
. 2 d 1 3 2 , 1 3 4 ( T e x. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1989, no pet.).

No de mand

fo r t he e xtra dit ion of a pe rs on c ha rg e d wi th c ri me in a

no the r S ta te shall be re cog nized by

the Gover

nor unless in w riting, alleg ing . . . that the acc used was pre sent in the demandingState at the time of the c omm i s s i o n o f t h e alleg ed crime, a nd that there afte r he f

led from the State, a

nd acc o m p an i ed b y a copy of an indictment found or by

information supported by aff idavit in the S tate having jurisdiction of the crime, or by a copy of an a ffi davit befor e a ma g istrate ther e, toge ther with a c opy

of any war rant whic h issued there upon; or by a copy of a jud g me nt of c on vic tio n or of a se nte nc e imp os e d in e xec uti on the re of , to g e the r w ith a stateme nt by

the Executive Authority of the de manding State that the pers on claimed ha s esca

ped fr om confineme nt or has broke n the terms of his bail, probation or pa ro le
. Th e ind ic tme nt, inf

or ma tio n, or

a ff ida vit ma de be fo re the ma g istra te mus t substantially

char g e the person demanded wit h having committed a crime under the law of that State . . . . T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . ANN . art. 51.13, § 3. Only four issues may be prope rly

raised in c onnection wi th a ha be a s c ha lle ng e to a

n e xtra dit ion pr oc e e din g : (1 ) wh e the r t he e xtra dit ion

do c ume nts a re in order , (2) whe ther the a

pplicant has be en cha

rg ed with a c rime in the dema nding state, (3) w hether the a pp lic ant i s the same pe rs on name d in the e xtra dit ion

re qu e st, and

(4 ) w he the r t

he a pp lic a nt i s a fug itive. State ex re l. Holmes v. Klev enhagen , 819 S.W .2d 539 (Tex
. C ri m . App. 1991) (c iting Michigan v. D oran , 439 U.S. 282 (1978)). On a pp e a l to thi s Cour

t, Gr e e n ra ise s four iss ue s. F ir st, he c on te nd s th e e vid e nc e in t his c a se fails to aff

irmatively

demon strate the pe rson in the Gre g g County J ail identified as Car lton J ames Gre en is the same Ca

rlton J . Gre en wa

nted by t h e S t at e of L ouisiana. Second, he argues the4

g overnor ' s warr ant is not signed. T hird, he a sserts the letter s from the De Soto P arish, L ouisiana, District Clerk' s off

i ce are unsigne d, and this lack of sig nature s is fatal. And, fina lly , Gre en complains the re cord f

ails to identify

the pre siding judg e of the Eleventh J udicial District Court of De Sot o Pa

ri sh , L ou isi ana , a

nd that su c h f

a ilure sh ou ld b e fa

ta l to the se e xtra dit ion

pr oc e e din g s. Wit h respe ct to Gre en' s first issue, at a bond he aring , the same tria l court hea rd testimony from Gr een himself that he had previously been in c ustody

in DeSoto Parish, L ouisiana, on the ve ry char g es for

which the State of

L ouisiana now see ks to have him extradited. Gre en' s own testimony thus affirmatively

ref utes his contention that the re cord f ails to show he is the same Carlton J. Green wanted by

the State of L ouisiana on the underly ing criminal char g es. Next, we have r eviewe d the g ov e rn or s' wa

rr ants a dmi tte d in to e vid e nc e ; bo th t he Te xas a

nd the L ou isi ana g ov e rn or s' wa rr a nts
are signe d by

the chief executive offic ers of those states. Ne x t, Article 51.13 of the Texas Code of C ri m i n al P ro ce d

u re d o es n o tre qu i re t h at a m er e l et t er t h at ac co mp an i es d o c u m e n t s fr o m fo re i gn states be sig ned; what matte rs i s t h at the docume nts actually require d by

the Uniform Criminal Ex tradition A ct b e s i gn ed—and in this ca se, all the ne cessa ry documents appe ar to be ar the appropr iate sig nature s by the prope r state officia ls. And, finally , we f ind nothing in Article 51.13 that ma nd a te s d isc re te ide nti fi c a tio n o f t he c ur re nt p re sid ingjud g e of

a fo re ig n s ta te ' s tr ia l c ourt
.5

For these re asons, we c onclude Gr een' s issues a re unsupported by law or f act in this case , and
we , th e re fo re , a ff

ir m th e tr ia l c ourt ' s ju dg me nt.

J ack Ca rter J ustice Date Submitted: Marc h 27, 2008 Date D ecide d: Marc h 28, 2008 Do No t Pu

bli sh