Court Opinion

ID: 9676748
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 05:32:01.44581+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:50.871340
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing
MORRISON, Judge.
Appellant urges that we discuss his contention that the indictment which was introduced at the hearing alleged no date on .which the offense, with which he was charged having committed in the State of Alabama, occurred. The indictment reads in part as follows:
“Circuit Court of Montgomery County, November Term A.D. 1961.
“The Grand Jury of said County charge that, before the finding of this indictment, Guy Drake * * * did *
Were we writing on a clean sheet, we might be inclined to agree with appellant’s contention, but we find that this Court has held in Pearce v. State, 32 Tex.Cr.R. 301, 23 S.W. 15, that an indictment from the same State containing the same allegation as to when the offense was committed was sufficient to authorize extradition. Ex parte Strom, 168 Tex.Cr.R. 130, 324 S.W. 2d 224, we said:
“We hold that the complaint substantially charges appellants with the crime of robbery in the State of California and that the question of its sufficiency as a criminal pleading is one to be determined by the courts of that State.”
See also Ex parte Woodland, 146 Tex.Cr.R. 616, 177 S.W.2d 62, and Annot., 46 A.L.R. 2d, pp. 1151, 1159.
Appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.