EX PARTEFROM A DISTRICT COURT LUIS A. PEREZ

 
COURT OF APPEALS
FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT DALLAS
NO. 05-89-00489-CR
EX PARTEFROM A DISTRICT COURT
 
 
LUIS A. PEREZOF DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
 
 
BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ENOCH AND JUSTICES BAKER AND WHITTINGTON
OPINION PER CURIAM
JUNE 29, 1989
        Luis A. Perez appeals the trial court's order extraditing him to the State of Virginia. Appellant raises two points of error, claiming that (1) the order of the district court adopting the recommendation of the magistrate is void because the court did not have a transcript of the hearing at the time the order was entered, and (2) the State failed to establish that appellant was the individual named in the Governor's warrant. We overrule appellant's points and affirm the trial court's judgment.
        The hearing on appellant's application for writ of habeas corpus was held before a magistrate for the criminal district courts of Dallas County. See TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 54.301 et seq. (Vernon 1989). The magistrate made written findings and recommended that the application be denied. On April 12, 1989, the trial court entered two orders which said:
    [ORDER 1] The Court, having examined the Magistrate's Proposed Findings and Recommendations, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, hereby adopts the Findings and Recommendations of the Magistrate.
 
    [ORDER 2] BE IT KNOWN that the court has reviewed the actions taken by the Magistrate, sitting for this court, in the above numbered and styled case.
 
    IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DECREED that the court specifically adopts and ratifies the actions taken by Magistrate Charles McClure on behalf of this Court in compliance with Sec. 54.306 et seq. of the Texas Government Code, V.A.C.S., AND FURTHER, (GRANTS) (DENIES) PROBATION TO THE DEFENDANT.
A statement of facts of the hearing before the magistrate was filed with the district court and this Court on May 9, 1989. Appellant now argues that the orders adopting the findings of the magistrate are void because the judge could not have reviewed the magistrate's actions without a transcription of the evidence presented during the hearing.
        Absent a showing to the contrary, there is a presumption of regularity attending the proceedings in the trial court. Ex parte Pardun, 744 S.W.2d 644, 645 (Tex. App.-- Dallas 1988, pet. ref'd). It is only if the record affirmatively shows that the district judge failed to review the magistrate's actions that we may disturb the judgment of the trial court. Pardun, 744 S.W.2d at 645; Ex parte Omura, 730 S.W.2d 766, 767-768 (Tex. App.-- Dallas 1987, pet ref'd).
        Appellant argues that the district court could not have reviewed the magistrate's findings without the statement of facts. We disagree. It is not necessary for the court to have a statement of facts of the proceedings before the magistrate to review the actions of the magistrate. Allen v. State, 748 S.W.2d 16 (Tex. App.--Dallas 1988, no pet.). As in Pardun, the findings of the magistrate in the present cause were attached to exhibits introduced at the hearing. The record shows appellant's claim is without merit. We overrule appellant's first point.
        In appellant's second point of error, he claims that the evidence was insufficient to show that he was the person named in the Governor's warrant. At the hearing, the Governor's warrant was introduced into evidence without objection. This was sufficient to establish a prima facie case authorizing extradition. Michigan v. Doran, 439 U.S. 282, 289 (1978); Ex parte Scarborough, 604 S.W.2d 170, 173 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980). In examining an application for writ of habeas corpus, a trial court may do no more than decide (a) whether the extradition documents on their face are in order; (b) whether the petitioner has been charged with a crime in the demanding state: (c) whether the petitioner is the person named in the request for extradition; and (d) whether the petitioner is a fugitive. Michigan v. Doran, 439 U.S. at 289.
        Appellant offered no evidence that he was not the person named in the Governor's Warrant. The only testimony offered by appellant was that of his wife, who said that at the time of the offense, her husband was not in the State of Virginia. However, the records show that appellant's extradition was under Section 6 of the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, which authorizes extradition of individuals who commit acts in one state intentionally resulting in crimes in the demanding state. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 51.13 § 6 (Vernon Supp. 1989). We conclude that the evidence presented by appellant was insufficient to rebut the prima facie showing as to identity made out by the introduction of the Governor's warrant. We overrule appellant's second point of error.
        The trial court's judgment is affirmed.
                                                  PER CURIAM
DO NOT PUBLISH
TEX. R. APP. P. 90
89-00489.F
 
 
File Date[01-02-89]
File Name[890489F]