Ex Parte James Steadman--Appeal from Criminal District Court, Magistrate Court of Bexar County

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-04-00188-CR

EX PARTE James STEADMAN
From the Criminal Law Magistrate Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2003-W-0554
Honorable Andrew Carruthers, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Paul W. Green, Justice

Sitting: Paul W. Green, Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Delivered and Filed: August 18, 2004

AFFIRMED

The trial court denied appellant James Steadman's application for writ of habeas corpus seeking relief from a governor's warrant directing his extradition to the state of Kentucky. He appeals. Because the issues in this appeal involve the application of well-settled principles of law, we affirm the trial court's order in this memorandum opinion. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

1. In his first, second, and fourth issues, Steadman complains the evidence is insufficient to support the trial court's finding that he is the same person named in the governor's warrant. A mistake of one letter in the spelling of Steadman's name and one year difference in stating his date of birth is not such a discrepancy that the trial court must ignore the fingerprint and photograph identification presented by the State. See Ex parte Nelson, 594 S.W.2d 67, 68 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979) (photo identification is sufficient); Ex parte Shoels, 643 S.W.2d 761, 762 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1982, no pet.) (identity need not be shown beyond a reasonable doubt and strict rules of evidence do not apply in extradition proceeding).

2. In his third issue, Steadman complains the warrant is not in order on its face. It appears this claim is based on the fact that the Kentucky application for extradition is signed by a Phillip R. Patton, Judge of the Circuit Court, and the Indictment on which the application is based is signed by a Phil Patton, Commonwealth's Attorney. (1) Steadman presents no argument or authority explaining how this supposed irregularity affects the validity of the warrant. The issue is waived for appeal. See Swearingen v. State, 101 S.W.3d 89, 100 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003).

3. In his fifth point of error, Steadman complains that he did not receive appointed counsel for over sixty days after he was arrested in Texas. Although it is true that indigent defendants are entitled to appointed counsel for extradition proceedings, "the accused is not entitled to be heard by the Governor before he signs the executive warrant." Ex parte Ransom, 726 S.W.2d 203, 204-05 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1987, no pet.) (citing Ex parte Roberts, 479 S.W.2d 293, 293-94 (Tex. Crim. App.1972)). "Representation by counsel before issuance of the Governor's warrant is not essential to providing the accused a fair opportunity to challenge his extradition." Id. (2)

4. Finally, Steadman argues that extradition must be denied because he was improperly detained for thirty-six days rather than thirty days before the governor's warrant was issued. The issuance of the governor's warrant renders this complaint moot. See Ex parte Worden, 502 S.W.2d 803, 805 (Tex. Crim. App. 1973); Ex parte Echols, 810 S.W.2d 430, 431 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1991, no pet.).

For the reasons stated herein, Steadman's issues on appeal are overruled. The order of the trial court is affirmed.

Paul W. Green,

Justice

Do Not Publish

1. There is no indication whether these two signatures are by the same person. Even if they are, three years have elapsed between the execution of the two documents. Mr. Patton may well be Judge Patton by now.

2. The warrant in this case was issued on January 26, 2004, but was not served on Steadman until February 19, 2004. The record suggests the delay was due to Steadman's open heart surgery on February 4, 2004. Counsel was appointed on the same day that Steadman was served with the Governor's warrant.