Court Opinion

ID: 9760177
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 00:42:12.208781+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:08.830555
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
DICE, Judge.
Appellants, in their motion for rehearing, for the first time insist that the complaint (affidavit) accompanying the demand of the Governor of California which was introduced in evidence by the state was insufficient to substantially charge them with a crime under the laws of that state as required by Sec. 3, Art. 1008a, V.A.C.C.P., Uniform Criminal Extradition Act.
The complaint, after naming the appellants, charged:
“That the crime of violation of Section 211 of the Penal Code (Robbery) a felony has been committed by the above named *133defendants as follows: That said defendants in the County of Riverside, State of California, on or about April 12, 1958 did wilfully and unlawfully rob SAFEWAY STORES, INC., located at 9185 Magnolia Avenue, in Arlington, California, of lawful money of the United States * *
Included within the papers accompanying the demand is a copy of Sec. 211 of the California Penal Code which provides:
“Robbery is the felonious taking of personal property in the possession of another, from his person or immediate presence, and against his will, accomplished by means of force or fear.”
Appellants insist that the allegations of the complaint are insufficient to charge the offense of robbery either under the California Statute or under the Texas Statute, Art. 1408, V.A. P.C., and not being substantially charged with the crime, they should be discharged.
In Ex Parte Gore, 162 Texas Cr. Rep. 128, 283 S.W. 2d 69, this court in passing upon a contention that the indictment accompanying the demand was insufficient cited the rule stated in 35 C.J.S., Extradition, par. 14, as follows:
“ ‘Unless the indictment or affidavit is clearly void, its validity will be left to the courts of the demanding state. The asylum state is not concerned with the sufficiency of the indictment or affidavit as a criminal pleading; the question of its sufficiency for that purpose will be left to the demanding state.’ ”
In Ex Parte Gesek, 164 Texas Cr. Rep. 652, 302 S.W. 2d 417, the rule was again quoted in holding that the affidavit in the case substantially charged the appellant with a felony in the demanding state.
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.
Appellants’ motion for rehearing is overruled.
Opinion approved by the Court.