OPINION
ODOM, Judge.This is an appeal from an order remanding appellant to custody for extradition to the State of California.
On this appeal appellant resists extradition on two grounds. First, he contends that the trial court’s order must be reversed because the Texas Governor’s Warrant and the supporting papers were not introduced into evidence and cannot support the trial court’s decision.1 Second, he contends that the authentication of the supporting papers by the executive authority of the State of California does not meet *205the requirements of Art. 51.13, Sec. 3, Y.A. C.C.P. Under the circumstances of this case, we overrule these contentions and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The record reflects that the Texas Governor’s Warrant together with the supporting papers from the State of California were marked as State’s Exhibit No. 1. These papers were neither formally introduced nor admitted into evidence at the habeas corpus hearing. Appellant relies on Ex parte Sykes, 400 S.W.2d 568 (Tex.Cr.App.), wherein it is stated:
“The Executive Warrant of the Governor of Texas is not found in the record, though the order appealed from recites that it was considered.
“The same is true as to the requisition of the Governor of Arizona, and supporting documents.
“In the absence of the Executive Warrant or other evidence offered by the State, there was no showing that appellant was lawfully restrained.
“The order remanding appellant for extradition is reversed and the cause remanded.”
It is clear, however, that State’s Exhibit No. 1 was before the trial court and was considered by him prior to entry of his order remanding appellant to custody for extradition.
In Killion v. State, 503 S.W.2d 765 (Tex.Cr.App.1973), appellant entered pleas of guilty to two felony charges. On appeal he contended that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions as required by Art. 1.15, V.A.C.C.P. The record in each case contained a written stipulation sworn to by appellant before a deputy district clerk in which the appellant fully acknowledged his guilt of each of the offenses charged. Although these written stipulations were neither formally introduced nor read into evidence, a reading of the records indicated that the court and the parties treated the stipulations as if they had been admitted into evidence. There we stated:
“. . . The appellant did not object when the trial court treated the written stipulations as if they had been admitted into evidence. Therefore, they may be considered in support of the judgment as if they had formally been admitted.” (Citations omitted)
We find Killion, supra, instructive here. Although the Texas Governor’s Warrant was neither formally introduced nor admitted into evidence, it was treated by the court and the parties as if it had been admitted. The warrant is in the record before us and we find it regular on its face. Under these circumstances, we decline to reverse the judgment of the trial court. See Ex parte Jackson, 470 S.W.2d 679 (Tex.Cr.App.1971), and compare Hokr v. State, 545 S.W.2d 463 (Tex.Cr.App.1977); Ex parte Hagler, 278 S.W.2d 143 (Tex.Cr.App.1955), is overruled to the extent of conflict.
Article 51.13, Sec. 3, supra, provides that no demand for extradition of a person charged with a crime in another state shall be recognized by the Governor of this State unless it is in writing and is accompanied by certain named documents which must be authenticated by the executive authority making the demand. As we understand appellant’s second contention, he does not claim that the supporting papers do not contain the requisite documents; rather, he contends that these documents have not been properly authenticated by the Governor of the State of California. We overrule this contention. The opening paragraph of the requisition of the Governor of the State of California states, in part:
“Whereas, it appears by the annexed application for requisition and copies of docket sheet reflecting guilty plea and supporting papers which I certify are authentic and duly authenticated in accordance with the laws of the State of California, . . .” (Emphasis added.)
The contention is without merit, because this certification, which was signed by the Governor and Secretary of State of California and which bears the Great Seal of that State, was sufficient to authenticate all the supporting papers. See and compare Ex parte Fontes, 475 S.W.2d 781 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); Ex parte Case, 485 S.W.2d 561 (Tex.*206Cr.App.1972); Ex parte Foss, 492 S.W.2d 552 (Tex.Cr.App.1973).
The judgment is affirmed.
. The burden was on the State to introduce the Texas Governor’s Warrant; however, the burden was on appellant to introduce the supporting papers. Ex parte Kronhaus, 410 S.W.2d 442 (Tex.Cr.App.1967).