Court Opinion

ID: 9763249
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 02:39:40.842892+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:40.184890
License: Public Domain

W.C. DAVIS, Judge,
concurring.
While this Court ordinarily will not go behind the face of a demanding state’s charging instrument to determine its validity, that being a question for the demanding state to determine, Ex Parte Flores, 548 S.W.2d 31 (Tex.Cr.App.1977), I do not believe it unreasonable to look behind the face of the papers supplied by the demanding state where that is necessary, as it is here, to determine not simply whether the instruments are sufficient to charge an offense in that state, but whether the threshold requirement that a crime has been substantially charged by some means cognizable under Art. 51.13, V.A.C.C.P., § 31 has been met.
Satisfied that the majority has not abandoned the holding of Flores, I concur in the judgment of the Court.
MILLER, J., joins.

. Had the question been simply whether the instruments were valid to charge a crime in California, it might have been enough to determine whether an affidavit of complaint in that state may be made before the clerk of the court, rather than only before a magistrate, as contemplated by Art. 51.13.