Court Opinion

ID: 9641646
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 17:37:05.739929+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:38.909754
License: Public Domain

ON appellant’s motion for rehearing
WOODLEY, Judge.
Appellant contends that the prosecution in the state of Arkansas is based upon information alone, with no showing that prosecution for a felony is authorized upon information by Arkansas law.
In Ex parte Cherry, 155 Texas Cr. Rep. 324, 234 S.W. 2d 1011, cited by appellant, the record did not reflect that Cherry was charged in the demanding state by affidavit.
The Executive Warrant and the supporting papers in this cause show that appellant was charged by affidavit in the state of Arkansas and also by information.
The affidavit made by G. C. Holloway was to the effect that, after calling at his shed in Arkansas and purchasing and paying for two loads of peaches, appellant represented that he would make payment “the day of the load and not in the future” upon each load of peaches hauled away from Holloway’s shed. Holloway relied on such representation and when he learned that appellant had fraudulently obtained several loads without paying therefor he stopped the last two in Houston and sold them through other channels.
*532Under the false pretense that the peaches would be paid for “the day of the load and not in the future,” appellant is alleged to have obtained peaches on several consecutive days, the aggregate value of said peaches so obtained and not paid for being $5,869.25.
Remaining convinced that the trial court did not err in remanding appellant to custody for delivery to the agent of the state of Arkansas, appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.