Court Opinion

ID: 9683871
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 13:38:59.150014+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:50.957504
License: Public Domain

ON APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR REHEARING;
DAVIDSON, Judge.
.Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the executive warrant of the governor of this state to warrant or authorize his arrest or detention thereunder because the offense with which appellant stands charged is not named therein. Ex Parte Thomas, 53 Tex. Cr. R. 37, 108 S. W. 663; Ex Parte Riddle, 131 Tex. Cr. R. 563, 101 S. W. 2d 268.
We note that the instant warrant recites that appellant stands charged in the demanding state with “the crime of issuing checks without sufficient funds.” It is noted that the accompanying papers referred to contain a copy of the laws of the State of California certified as authentic by the governor of that state, and show that the crime named in the warrant is a felony in that state.
The warrant is deemed not subject to the error claimed. *466Ex Parte Cupp, 129 Tex. Cr. R. 25, 84 S. W. 2d 731; Ex Parte Yawman, 113 Tex. Cr. R. 20, 18 S. W. 2d 647.
We remain convinced that a correct conclusion was reached originally. Appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.
Opinion approved by the court.