Ex Parte: Ronald Phipps--Appeal from 21st District Court of Bastrop County

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT OF TEXAS,
AT AUSTIN
NO. 3-93-306-CR
EX PARTE: RONALD PHIPPS,

APPELLANT

 
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BASTROP COUNTY, 21ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. 20,935, HONORABLE JOHN L. PLACKE, JUDGE PRESIDING

PER CURIAM

 

This is an appeal from an order of the district court, made following a hearing on appellant's writ of habeas corpus, remanding appellant for extradition to Kentucky. Tex. R. App. P. 44. The supporting documents reflect that appellant is wanted in Kentucky to answer to an alleged parole violation.

In his first point of error, appellant urges that there is a fatal variance in the papers supporting the governor's warrant. Appellant refers to an affidavit from the chairperson of the Kentucky Parole Board, which states that appellant "has violated the terms and conditions of parole in the following instance, to wit: See attached certified copies of California Judgments." The attached documents reflect convictions in the United States District Court, Central District of California. Contrary to appellant's argument, we find no discrepancy between the affidavit and the attached judgments. The affidavit does not state that the judgments are from a California state court. Point of error one is overruled.

In point of error two, appellant contends that Kentucky did not diligently seek his return and thereby waived its jurisdiction. Appellant was released on parole in 1980. Appellant testified that Kentucky authorities were informed of his federal convictions in 1981, but did not place a detainer on appellant until sixty hours before his scheduled release from federal prison. Appellant asserts that by its inaction, Kentucky forfeited its right to revoke his parole.

Once the governor of the asylum state has granted extradition, a court considering release on habeas corpus can do no more than decide whether the extradition documents on their face are in order, whether the petitioner has been charged with a crime in the demanding state, whether the petitioner is the person named in the request for extradition, and whether the petitioner is a fugitive. Michigan v. Doran, 439 U.S. 282, 288-89 (1978); Wray v. State, 624 S.W.2d 573 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981). The effect, if any, of Kentucky's failure to lodge a detainer sooner than it did is not a proper subject for consideration in this cause. Upon his return to Kentucky, appellant may advance his contention in an appropriate forum. Point of error two is overruled.

The order of the district court is affirmed.

 

[Before Chief Justice Carroll, Justices Aboussie and Jones]

Affirmed

Filed: August 11, 1993

[Do Not Publish]