ACCEPTED
05-15-00185-CR
FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS
DALLAS, TEXAS
3/23/2015 4:41:15 PM
LISA MATZ
CLERK
FILED IN
5th COURT OF APPEALS
No. 05-15-00185-CR DALLAS, TEXAS
3/23/2015 4:41:15 PM
IN THE FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS LISA MATZ
Clerk
_________________________________________________
EX PARTE
BRANDON WALTON STEWART
_________________________________________________
APPEAL FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 3 OF
DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS, CAUSE NO. WX15-90003
_________________________________________________
APPELLANT’S BRIEF ON DIRECT APPEAL
_________________________________________________
BRUCE ANTON SORRELS, UDASHEN & ANTON
State Bar No. 01274700 2311 Cedar Springs, Suite 250
ba@sualaw.com Dallas, Texas 75201
214-468-8100 (office)
BRETT ORDIWAY 214-468-8104 (fax)
State Bar No. 24079086
bordiway@sualaw.com Counsel for Appellant
Identity of Parties and Counsel
For Appellant Brandon Walton Stewart:
PAUL BLOCKER
Writ hearing counsel of record
DALLAS COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER’S OFFICE
133 North Riverfront Boulevard
Dallas, Texas 75207
BRUCE ANTON
BRETT ORDIWAY
Appellate counsel of record
SORRELS, UDASHEN & ANTON
2311 Cedar Springs, Suite 250
Dallas, Texas 75201
For Appellee the State of Texas:
ALEX HERNANDEZ
Writ hearing counsel of record
DALLAS COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
133 North Riverfront Boulevard
Dallas, Texas 75207
To be determined
Appellate counsel of record
DALLAS COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
Trial court:
THE HONORABLE DOROTHY SHEAD
Magistrate Judge
THE HONORABLE GRACIE LEWIS
Criminal District Court No. 3
2
Table of Contents
Identity of Parties and Counsel ................................................................. 2
Index of Authorities .................................................................................... 4
Statement of Facts and the Case ............................................................... 5
Issue Presented........................................................................................... 7
Whether the trial court erred in denying Stewart’s writ application
because it did not have before it the requisite evidence to support
extradition ............................................................................................... 7
Summary of the Argument ........................................................................ 8
Argument .................................................................................................... 9
Certificate of Service ................................................................................ 12
Certificate of Compliance ......................................................................... 12
3
Index of Authorities
Cases
Kelley v. State, 676 S.W.2d 104, 107 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) ................. 10
Omura v. State, 730 S.W.2d 766, 768 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1987, writ
ref’d) ....................................................................................................... 10
Statutes
TEX. CRIM. PROC. CODE ANN. art. 51.13 ..................................................... 9
4
Statement of Facts and the Case1
Stewart was charged in California with several crimes. (CR: 11).
Upon learning that Stewart was in Texas, California’s Governor de-
manded from Texas’s Governor that Stewart be arrested and extradited
to California. (CR: 11). Texas’s Governor acquiesced, and Stewart was
arrested in Dallas County pursuant to an extradition warrant. (CR: 9-
10).
Stewart filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus in which
he argued that his “arrest and detention [were] unlawful and not a
proper basis for the extradition of the applicant to the State of Califor-
nia because” because:
1) he had “not be[en] adjudged guilty of the crimes of which he
is accused in the state o f California;” and
2) his identity had “not been affirmatively linked to the person
sought by the law enforcement authorities of the state of
California.”
1Because this case is resolved entirely on procedural grounds, the Statements of the
Facts and Case are merged.
5
(CR: 5). The court held a brief hearing on the matter on January 22,
2015, before a magistrate judge. (RR: 5). Stewart urged that, because
there was no fingerprint analysis performed, there was “no biometric or
conclusive link” that he was the man sought in California. (RR: 11-12).
The State introduced a copy of the Governor’s warrant with supporting
documentation and then argued that, to challenge identity, an applicant
must “deny under oath that he is the person named in the warrant,”
and Stewart had not done that. (RR: 9-10, 13; SX 1 & 2) (citing Ex parte
Larkins, No. 05-11-00477-CR, 2011 WL 3795254 (Tex. App.—Dallas
2011, no pet.); Ex parte Scarborough, 604 S.W.2d 170, 174 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1980); Ex parte Connelly, 479 S.W.2d 943, 944 (Tex. Crim. App.
1972); Ex parte Martinez, 530 S.W.2d 578, 579 (Tex. Crim. App. 1975)).
The magistrate judge then recommended Stewart’s application be de-
nied for just that reason, and the court adopted that recommendation.
(RR: 15; CR: 97-98). Stewart filed notice of appeal that day. (CR: 99).
6
Issue Presented
Whether the trial court erred in denying Stew-
art’s writ application because it did not have be-
fore it the requisite evidence to support extradi-
tion
7
Summary of the Argument
No demand for the extradition of a person charged with a crime in
another State shall be recognized by the Governor unless accompanied
by, among other things, a copy of any warrant issued upon the indict-
ment or information. And though in this case, Stewart concedes that the
necessary documents were introduced at the hearing before the magis-
trate judge, none of the State’s exhibits were actually appended to the
magistrate’s findings. Because the court adopted the magistrate’s find-
ings without reviewing the necessary documents, then, the court’s find-
ing was unsupported. Thus, Stewart’s writ application was erroneously
denied.
8
Argument
The trial court erred in denying Stewart’s writ
application because it did not have before it the
requisite evidence to support extradition
w w w
No demand for the extradition of a person charged with a crime in
another state shall be recognized by the Governor “unless in writing…
and accompanied by, [among other things,] a copy of any warrant” is-
sued upon the indictment or information. TEX. CRIM. PROC. CODE ANN.
art. 51.13 § 3. If a person “desire[s] to test the legality of his arrest [on
such grounds], the judge of the court of record shall fix a reasonable
time to be allowed the prisoner in which to apply for a writ of habeas
corpus TEX. CRIM. PROC. CODE ANN. art. 51.13 § 10.
In this case, Stewart concedes that, upon his challenge of as much,
the necessary documents were introduced at the hearing before the
magistrate judge. (SX1 & 2). And, to that end, the magistrate’s recom-
mendation states that “that copies of all documentary evidence are at-
tached hereto.” (CR: 97). But none of the State’s exhibits—not the Texas
Governor’s executive warrant, nor the California Governor’s request for
9
extradition—were actually appended to the magistrate’s findings. (RR:
19-20; SX2; CR: 97).
This is significant because the validity of the trial court’s order
denying relief rests entirely upon the adequacy of the magistrate’s find-
ings. For, in hearing such an application for a writ of habeas corpus, the
magistrate acts as an agent of the district court. See Kelley v. State, 676
S.W.2d 104, 107 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984). And review of the magistrate’s
findings by the district court is a prerequisite to the entry of a valid
judgment—“it is mandatory that the district judge review the actions
taken by the magistrate.” Omura v. State, 730 S.W.2d 766, 768 (Tex.
App.—Dallas 1987, writ ref’d). Thus, if the magistrate’s findings were
inadequate, the order adopting them would likewise be flawed.
In this case, then, because the magistrate’s recommendation did
not include the necessary documentation, the district court never ac-
quired possession of, nor reviewed, the necessary documents. Indeed,
the trial court’s adoption of the magistrate’s recommendations is entire-
ly unaccompanied. (CR: 98). Instead, it appears that the exhibits re-
mained in the custody of the court reporter until the reporter’s record
was filed with the Court of Appeals on February 3, 2015. Thus, because,
10
contrary to the court’s order, the court did not find the necessary docu-
mentation to be in order, Stewart’s writ application was erroneously
denied.
Prayer
For this reason, Stewart respectfully requests this Court to re-
verse the order of the habeas court and grant him habeas relief.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Bruce Anton
BRUCE ANTON
Bar Card No. 01274700
ba@sualaw.com
/s/ Brett Ordiway
BRETT ORDIWAY
State Bar No. 24079086
bordiway@sualaw.com
SORRELS, UDASHEN & ANTON
2311 Cedar Springs Road, Suite 250
Dallas, Texas 75201
(214)-468-8100 (office)
(214)-468-8104 (fax)
Counsel for Appellant
11
Certificate of Service
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of
the foregoing Appellant’s Brief was electronically served to the Dallas
County District Attorney’s Office on March 23, 2015.
/s/ Bruce Anton
Bruce Anton
Certificate of Compliance
Pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 9.4(i)(3), undersigned counsel certifies
that this brief complies with:
1. the type-volume limitation of TEX. R. APP. P. 9.4(i)(2)(B) because
this brief contains 535 words, excluding the parts of the brief ex-
empted by TEX. R. APP. P. 9.4(i)(1).
2. the typeface requirements of TEX. R. APP. P. 9.4(e) and the type
style requirements of TEX. R. APP. P. 9.4(e) because this brief has
been prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface using Microsoft
Word 2011 in 14-point Century.
/s/ Bruce Anton
BRUCE ANTON
12