Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed April 26, 2005.
In The
Fourteenth Court of Appeals
____________
NO. 14-04-01208-CR
____________
LEOPOLDO L. SALINAS, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 209th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 1007668
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Appellant, Leopoldo L. Salinas, was charged in the State of Mississippi with conspiracy to commit a crime, to wit: transfer of a controlled substance. Based on an application for requisition by the governor of Mississippi, Texas Governor Rick Perry signed a governor=s warrant for appellant=s arrest and extradition. Appellant filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus. On December 7, 2004, after a hearing, the trial court denied appellant=s application and remanded him for extradition. Appellant appeals from the trial court=s denial of his application. We affirm.
After the governor=s warrant and supporting documentation were admitted into evidence at the hearing, appellant attempted to call witnesses to testify that he was in Houston on the date the charged offense was committed, not Mississippi. The trial court sustained the State=s objection to that testimony. In his sole issue on appeal, appellant complains that the trial court erred in excluding witness testimony that he was in Houston on the date he was alleged to have committed the offense.
A governor=s grant of extradition is prima facie evidence that the constitutional and statutory requirements for extradition have been satisfied. Michigan v. Doran, 439 U.S. 282, 289 (1978); State ex rel. Holmes v. Klevenhagen, 819 S.W.2d 539, 542 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). The purpose of the writ of habeas corpus is to test the legality of the extradition proceedings, not to inquire into the viability of the prosecution or confinement in the demanding state. Lott v. State, 864 S.W.2d 152, 153 (Tex. App.CHouston [14th Dist.] 1993, pet. ref=d). Thus, once the governor of Texas granted extradition, the trial court, in considering appellant=s application, was limited to deciding the following issues: (1) whether the extradition documents were valid; (2) whether appellant was charged with a crime in the demanding state; (3) whether appellant was the person named in the request for extradition; and (4) whether appellant was a fugitive. Doran, 439 U.S. at 289.
Article 51.13 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure requires that the written requisition from the governor of the demanding state allege that the accused was present in that state at the time of the commission of the offense alleged, but does not require proof that the accused was in the demanding state at the time of the alleged offense. Ex parte Geringer, 778 S.W.2d 132, 133B34 (Tex. App.CHouston [1st Dist.] 1989, no pet.) (citing Tex. Code Crim. P. Ann. art. 51.13, ' 3 (Vernon 1979)); Rayburn v. State ,748 S.W.2d 285, 289 (Tex. App.CTyler 1988, no pet.). Evidence of the accused=s whereabouts on the date of the offense is relevant only to the issue of guilt or innocenceCan issue reserved for the courts of the demanding state, and, therefore, is not admissible in a habeas corpus hearing in the asylum state. Geringer, 778 S.W.2d at 134; Rayburn, 748 S.W.2d at 289; see also California v. Superior Court 482, U.S. 400, 407 (1987) (A[E]xtradition proceedings are >to be kept within narrow bounds=; they are >emphatically= not the appropriate time or place for entertaining defenses or determining the guilt or innocence of the charged party. . . . Those inquiries are left to the prosecutorial authority and courts of the demanding State, . . . .@) (citations omitted). Evidence that appellant was not in Mississippi at the time of the charged offense was not admissible in his habeas corpus proceeding. Therefore, the trial court did not err in sustaining the State=s objection and excluding the testimony. Appellant=s sole issue is overruled.
Accordingly, we affirm the trial court=s judgment denying appellant=s application for a writ of habeas corpus.
/s/ J. Harvey Hudson
Justice
Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed April 26, 2005.
Panel consists of Justices Yates, Anderson, and Hudson.
Do Not Publish C Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).