Kevin Andrew Owens v. State

Opinion Issued March 3, 2005
















In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas





NO. 01-04-00841-CR

____________


KEVIN ANDREW OWENS, Appellant


V.


THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

 


 

 

On Appeal from the 56th District Court

Galveston County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 03CR3615

 


 

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

          The trial court granted an order to extradite appellant, Kevin Andrew Owens, from the State of Texas to the State of Illinois. In a single issue, appellant contends that the trial court erred in granting the State’s application for extradition to the State of Illinois.

          We dismiss appellant’s appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Procedural Background

          In late 2003 or early 2004, appellant was apparently served with a governor’s warrant from Illinois regarding an offense that he allegedly committed in the State of Illinois. At the time, appellant was apparently in jail in Galveston County, awaiting his trial for an unrelated offense that he allegedly committed in Texas. After appellant refused to sign a waiver of extradition and asserted that he was not the person named in the governor’s warrant from the State of Illinois, an extradition hearing was held on July 9, 2004. After the State presented the testimony of Galveston County Sergeant R. Hill, who testified that appellant’s fingerprints matched the fingerprints on the print card provided to him by the State, the trial court orally held that appellant be extradited to the State of Illinois. The trial court also told appellant that “[i]f you would like to appeal that ruling, you may do so.” On August 5, 2004, the trial court signed an order granting extradition, and appellant filed a notice of appeal on August 6, 2004. There is no evidence in the record that appellant filed an application for writ of habeas corpus.

Analysis

          In a single issue, appellant argues that the trial court erred in granting the State’s application to extradite him to the State of Illinois because the governor’s warrant was defective. Specifically, appellant asserts that the governor’s warrant was defective because “[n]owhere in the affidavit does it fulfill the requirement that [appellant] must have fled the demanding state.”

          The only vehicle for testing the legality of a governor’s warrant is through the filing of an application for writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte Chapman, 601 S.W.2d 380, 382-83 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980). Moreover, an appealable judicial determination occurs only if the arrestee challenges the extradition by way of a writ of habeas corpus and receives an adverse ruling by the trial court. Id. at 383. If no writ of habeas corpus is filed, the arrestee is not in the posture of an applicant for habeas corpus whose prayer for relief has been denied for appellate purposes. Id.

          Here, the record shows that appellant did not file an application for writ of habeas corpus, and, therefore, such a writ was never denied by the trial court. Therefore, because our jurisdiction is limited to consideration of an appeal from the denial of relief upon application of a writ of habeas corpus, we must dismiss appellant’s appeal. Id.

 

 

                                                                        Terry Jennings

                                                                        Justice


Panel consists of Justices Nuchia, Jennings, and Alcala.


Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).