*1 All appellant’s grounds Houston, Attys., of error are overruled and judgment of the trial for the State.
court is affirmed.
Opinion approved by the Court. shoplifting. The offense is Punishment jury days jail was assessed at 365 however, fine; jury and a recom- $500 probation. Despite mended the verdict jury, the trial court recommendation of the paid, ordered that the fine be OLIVA, Appellant, Nelda McCellon appeal. appellant gave action the notice of v. briefs, appellate reading After Texas, Appellee. requested by judge granted trial the relief probation min- modified No. 46776. 40.09, 12, Ann. utes under Vernon’s Art. § Appeals of Texas. of Criminal Court C.C.P., appel- to delete the condition 17, Oct. 1973. pay lant the fine assessed. proper. Faugh This action v. State, (Tex.Cr.App.1972) State, 473 S.W.2d Johnson presented (Tex.Cr.App.1971). Nothing is for review. judgment is affirmed. parte Bill Warren SCHMIDT. Appeals of Texas. of Criminal
Oct. 31, Rehearing 1973. Denied Cross, Richard Dist. Carol S. Adamo, Asst.
Brough and Sam
145 Nagle, appellant. for David J. Atty., Carol Brough, Asst. Dist. and Houston for the State. appeal following
This an a habeas cor- pus Court, hearing in the District 182nd which resulted in an order custody delivery be to remanded for California, pursuant to an executive war- by rant issued Governor of Texas. which introduced evidence, appears regular into its face. on This fact made out a au facie case thorizing appellant. the extradition of Dumas, Ex 487 753 Goodman, App.1972); Ex Parte 485 S.W. 2d Parte Bow (Tex.Cr.App.1972); 785 man, (Tex.Cr.App.1972).
Appellant complaints raises now four re- garding hearing. relate to Three papers, supporting also intro- were duced, the fourth to the identi- relates ty first pleadings
the California are not sufficient support the issuance of a warrant California, are insuffi hence cient support of the execu issuance tive warrant the Governor of our State. pleadings Whether the from the state support are sufficient to criminal prosecution in an issue that state is be fore if has been sub crime Weiner, stantially charged. See Ex Parte (Tex.Cr.App.1971). Appellant next asserts pleadings show, face, that the Cal their ifornia has run on all The order statute of limitations custo- charged. dy This has affirmed. offenses extradition is past, awith similar dealt contention in that we held that this a MORRISON, Judge (concurring).
matter defense which decided should be *3 I join affirming in the order the
in the courts of state. appellant custody. Appellant testified Ward, 470 Parte S.W.2d 684 deny person did not that he was the App.1971). may
named in the Executive Warrant. He put not now that his appeal contend he third is that identity in issue. requisition signed by the was California “Acting the that the State Governor” person had au
did not show that such
thority sign requisition. the the Since prima had made out a facie
State warrant,
its introduction of the executive proof upon appellant
the of burden the to overcome the facie existence of KALINEC, Henry Jr., Appellant, every the fact which Texas Governor of obliged determine before he issued Appellee. Texas, his warrant. This burden included ne cessity showing the “Acting Gover authority nor” California was without Appeals of Court of Criminal Texas. Fant, sign the requisition. Ex Parte 332 (Tex.Cr.App.1966). by ap
The fourth contention raised
pellant put his identity, is he as the
person named in issue and that
sworn denial then State proof his
brought forth no to contradict
denial. record reflects that worded in fol
introduced an affidavit
lowing fashion:
“This Affidavit executed for denying that the
purpose of under oath
person before ... the same Bill Schmidt Warren requisition in named ” added) (Emphasis . . California. observed, the affidavit con will be
As effect,
tains, negative, the a double con appellant’s is to confirm
sequence of which requisi
identity person named in the as the
tion, deny than to it. In view of rather properly did not fact that identity, his we conclude
raise the issue of no error. See Ex there was (Tex.Cr.App.
Connelly,
1972).