Ex Parte: Michael Runkel--Appeal from County Court at Law No 2 of Smith County

NO. 12-05-00269-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

APPEAL FROM THE

EX PARTE:

COUNTY COURT AT LAW #2

MICHAEL RUNKEL

SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Michael Runkel appeals the trial court s order denying his request for relief sought in his writ of habeas corpus. Appellant raises one issue on appeal. We affirm.

Background

Appellant was arrested on a fugitive warrant issuing out of the State of Michigan. Extradition proceedings commenced, and Appellant filed an application for writ of habeas corpus. The trial court granted the writ and conducted a hearing on Appellant s application. Following the hearing, the trial court denied the relief Appellant requested and ordered Appellant s extradition to Michigan. This appeal followed.

Extradition

In his sole issue, Appellant contends that the trial court improperly ordered his extradition to Michigan. The form of an extradition demand is dictated by Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, article 51.13, section 3. Article 51.13, section 3 states that, to be recognized by the Governor of Texas, an extradition demand must be (1) in writing, (2) allege that the accused was present in the demanding state at the time of the commission of the alleged crime, // and, thereafter, fled from the demanding state. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 51.13 3 (Vernon Supp. 2005). The demand must further contain a statement by the Executive Authority of the demanding state that the person claimed has escaped from confinement or has broken the terms of his bail, probation, or parole. Id. Moreover, the demand must be accompanied by one of the following: (1) a copy of an indictment or information found or supported by affidavit in the state that has jurisdiction over the crime; (2) a copy of an affidavit before a magistrate accompanied by a copy of any warrant thereon; or (3) a copy of a judgment of conviction or a sentence imposed in execution thereof. Id. The indictment, information, or affidavit made before the magistrate must substantially charge the person demanded with having committed a crime under the law of that state and must be authenticated by the Executive Authority making the demand. Id.

Appellant contends that extradition was improper because the governor s demand was not properly supported by an affidavit before a magistrate, that it failed to negate a notice element under Michigan law, and that it failed to show Appellant was substantially charged with an offense because the dates alleged were subsequent to the child s eighteenth birthday. When a judicial officer in a demanding state has found probable cause to arrest, the asylum state may not review that finding because it is clothed with the traditional presumption of regularity. See Ex parte Hunter, 697 S.W.2d 854, 855 (Tex. App Corpus Christi 1985, no pet.) (citing Michigan v. Doran, 439 U.S. 282, 290, 99 S. Ct. 530, 536, 58 L. Ed. 2d 521 (1978) (holding that once the governor of the asylum state has acted on a requisition for extradition based on the demanding state's judicial determination that probable cause existed, no further judicial inquiry may be had on that issue in the asylum state)); see also Ex parte Helber, No. 05-95-00810-CR, 1995 WL 605415, at *4 (Tex. App. Dallas Oct. 13, 1995, no pet.) (not designated for publication) (order finding probable cause and instructing district clerk to issue an arrest warrant satisfies the requirement of a judicial determination of probable cause to arrest, which is the reason for the requirement of an arrest warrant in cases where the charging instrument is an affidavit before a magistrate from the demanding state).

In the case at hand, the governor s warrant is supported by a document entitled Warrant Felony Non-Support. It commands any peace officer or court officer of Mason County, Michigan authorized to arrest Michael James Runkel and bring him before the court immediately. Moreover, in the warrant signed by Magistrate Patricia Baker, Judge Baker states that there is probable cause to believe that the named defendant committed the offense. See Hunter, 697 S.W.2d at 855. Therefore, because the warrant from the State of Michigan contains a judicial determination that there is probable cause to arrest Appellant, we decline to undermine such a finding by inquiring whether the affidavit accompanying the warrant contains probable cause for the warrant or is otherwise defective. Id. at 856. Appellant s sole issue is overruled.

Disposition

Having overruled Appellant s sole issue, we affirm the trial court s judgment.

SAM GRIFFITH

Justice

Opinion delivered January 11, 2006.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and DeVasto, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)