Brandon Walton Stewart v. State ( 2015 )

Affirmed and Opinion Filed May 18, 2015.
S In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-15-00185-CR
EX PARTE BRANDON WALTON STEWART
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 3
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. WX15-90003-J
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Lang, Stoddart, and Schenck
Opinion by Justice Lang
Brandon Walton Stewart filed an application for writ of habeas corpus seeking to avoid
extradition to California. The matter was referred to a magistrate, who, after conducting a
hearing, made findings and recommended that relief be denied. The district court adopted the
magistrate’s findings and denied habeas corpus relief. In a single issue, appellant contends the
trial court erred in denying him relief because “it did not have before it the requisite evidence to
support extradition.” We affirm the trial court’s order.
At the hearing before the magistrate, the State introduced into evidence the Governor’s
Warrant and the supporting documentation. Appellant did not deny his identity under oath, and
presented no other evidence that he is not the person named in the warrant. On January 23,
2015, the magistrate entered written proposed findings of fact that: (1) the Governor’s Warrant
is regular on its face; (2) appellant is charged with crimes in the demanding state, California;
(3) appellant is the person named in the warrant; and (4) appellant is a fugitive. On January 29,
2015, the district court entered an order that states, “The Court, having examined the
Magistrate’s Proposed Findings and Recommendations, and being otherwise fully advised in the
premises, hereby adopts the Findings and Recommendations of the Magistrate.”
Appellant does not challenge the magistrate’s findings. In fact, he concedes the
“necessary documents” were introduced at the hearing before the magistrate. He argues, rather,
that because the documents were not appended to the magistrate’s proposed findings, the district
court did not “find the necessary documentation to be in order,” and thus erred in denying
appellant relief. The State responds that appellant has not shown the district court did not review
the Governor’s Warrant and supporting documentation. We agree with the State.
In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we presume the regularity of trial court
proceedings. See Breazeale v. State, 683 S.W.2d 446, 450 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (op. on
reh’g). The trial court’s order adopting the magistrate’s findings and denying habeas corpus
relief recites that the court examined the findings and was “otherwise fully advised of the
premises.” Nothing in the record before the Court reflects that the district court did not have the
Governor’s Warrant and supporting documentation, which was admitted into evidence, before it
at the time the court reviewed and adopted the magistrate’s findings. See id.; see also TEX.
GOV’T CODE ANN. § 54.311 (West 2013) (magistrate shall transmit to referring court any papers
relating to the case, including findings, conclusions, order, recommendations, or other action
taken). Therefore, appellant has not presented a record that affirmatively contradicts the
recitations in the order so as to overcome the presumption of regularity. We overrule appellant’s
sole issue.
–2–
We affirm the trial court’s order denying appellant the relief sought by his application for
writ of habeas corpus.
/Douglas S. Lang/
DOUGLAS S. LANG
JUSTICE
Do Not Publish
TEX. R. APP. P. 47
150185F.U05
–3–
S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
EX PARTE BRANDON WALTON On Appeal from the Criminal District Court
STEWART No. 3, Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. WX15-90003-J.
No. 05-15-00185-CR Opinion delivered by Justice Lang, Justices
Stoddart and Schenck participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we AFFIRM the trial court’s order denying
appellant the relief sought by his application for writ of habeas corpus.
Judgment entered this 18th day of May, 2015.
–4–