Saul, Ex Parte Greg ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                                                                   PD-0936-15
    PD-0936-15                        COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
    AUSTIN, TEXAS
    Transmitted 8/13/2015 4:20:01 PM
    Accepted 8/14/2015 9:59:28 AM
    ABEL ACOSTA
    CLERK
    NO. 04-15-00093-CR
    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
    OF THE STATE OF TEXAS
    FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
    SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS
    ____________________________________
    EX PARTE:
    GREG SAUL
    ____________________________________
    FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS
    CAUSE NUMBER 04-15-00093-CR
    ____________________________________
    MOTION TO STAY MANDATE PURSUANT TO
    RULE 31.4 (1), TEXAS RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE
    _____________________________________
    Edward F. Shaughnessy, III
    Attorney-at-Law
    206 E. Locust
    San Antonio, Texas 78212
    (210) 212-6700
    (210) 212-2178 (fax)
    SBN 18134500
    Shaughnessy727@gmail.com
    August 14, 2015
    No. 04-15-00093-CR
    §               IN THE COURT OF
    EX PARTE:                                §               APPEALS, FOURTH
    GREG SAUL,                               §               COURT OF APPEALS
    Appellant                          §               SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS
    APPELLANT’S MOTION TO STAY MANDATE
    PURSUANT TO RULE 31.4 (1), TEXAS RULES
    OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE
    TO THE HONORABLE FOURTH COURT OF APPELAS:
    Now comes, Greg Saul, appellant in the instant case, by and through the
    undersigned Edward F. Shaughnessy, III, attorney at law, and files this the
    Appellant’s Motion to Stay Mandate Pursuant to Rule 31.4 (1), Texas Rules of
    Appellate Procedure. In filing the instant motion the appellant is seeking to have
    this Court stay the execution of the mandate in the instant matter and forward
    the attached Appellant’s Petition for Discretionary Review to the Court of
    Criminal Appeals in Austin, Texas. In support of the instant motion to stay the
    appellant would show unto the court the following:
    A
    The instant case involves the appeal of a trial Court’s order granting the
    extradition of the appellant to the State of Oklahoma.
    B
    On July 1, 2015, this Court entered an opinion affirming the judgment of
    the 218th District Court of Wilson County, Texas thereby sanctioning the
    appellant’s extradition to the State of Oklahoma.
    C
    The appellant is seeking to have the holding of this Court reviewed by the
    Court of Criminal Appeals by means of a Petition For Discretionary Review. In
    order to perfect that filing, the Rules of Appellate Procedure mandate that the
    appellant petition this Court for a stay of the mandate, with the Petition For
    Discretionary Review attached thereto as an appendix. The appellant’s Petition
    For Discretionary Review has been compiled and is attached to the instant
    motion as an appendix.
    CONCLUSION AND PRAYER
    Wherefore premises considered the appellant would respectfully request
    that this Court stay the mandate in the instant cause and forward the Appellant’s
    Petition For Discretionary Review to the Clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals
    for disposition thereof.
    Respectfully submitted,
    _________/s/____________
    Edward F. Shaughnessy, III
    Attorney at Law
    206 E. Locust
    San Antonio, Texas 78212
    (210) 212-6700
    SBN 18134500
    Shaughnessy727@gmail.com
    CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
    I, Edward F. Shaughnessy, III, hereby certify that a true and correct copy
    of the instant pleading was served upon Marc Ledet, Assistant District Attorney
    for the 218th Judicial District, attorney for the appellee, by use of the U.S. Mail on
    this the 15th day of July, 2015.
    ________/s/_____________
    Edward F. Shaughnessy, III
    APPENDIX
    NO. PD-_____________
    IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
    OF THE STATE OF TEXAS
    AUSTIN, TEXAS
    ____________________________________
    EX PARTE:
    GREG SAUL
    ____________________________________
    PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS
    FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS
    CAUSE NUMBER 04-15-00093-CR
    ____________________________________
    APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
    _____________________________________
    EDWARD F. SHAUGHNESSY III
    Attorney-at-Law
    206 E. Locust
    San Antonio, Texas 78212
    (210) 212-6700
    (210) 212-2178 (fax)
    SBN 18134500
    Shaughnessy727@gmail.com
    Attorney for the Appellant
    TABLE OF CONTENTS
    PAGE(S)
    APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW…………………………………...iii
    TABLE OF AUTHORITIES…………………………………………………………………………………....iv
    STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT…………………………………………………......v
    TABLE OF INTERESTED PARTIES………………………………………………………………………..vi
    AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANT’S PETITION
    FOR DICRETIONARY REVIEW…………………………………………………………………………......6
    NATURE OF THE CASE……………………………………………………………………………………......6
    PROCEDURAL HISTORY OF THE CASE…………………………………………………....…………..7
    REASON FOR REVIEW………………………………………………………………....…………..……......8
    GROUND FOR REVIEW………………………………………………………....…………………………….9
    ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
    OF THE GROUND FOR REVIEW…………………………...............…………………………………..11
    CONCLUSION AND PRAYER…………………………………………………………………………….....14
    CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE………………………………………………………………………………....15
    APPENDIX …………………………………………………………………………………………………....……16
    ii
    NO. PD-____________________
    §                   IN THE COURT OF
    §
    EX PARTE: GREG SAUL,                     §                   CRIMINAL APPEALS
    Appellant                          §
    §                   AUSTIN, TEXAS
    ______________________
    PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW OF CAUSE NUMBER
    04-15-00093-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR
    THE FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS
    SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS
    _________________________
    APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
    Now comes, Edward F. Shaughnessy, III, Attorney-at-Law, on behalf of the
    appellant, Greg Saul, and prays that a Petition for Discretionary Review be granted to
    the appellant in the above styled and numbered cause. The arguments in support of that
    request are provided hereinafter and are incorporated by reference.
    EDWARD F. SHAUGHNESSY III
    Attorney-at-Law
    206 E. Locust
    San Antonio, Texas 78212
    (210) 212-6700
    (210) 212-2178 (fax)
    SBN 18134500
    Shaughnessy727@gmail.com
    Attorney for the Appellant
    iii
    TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
    STATE CASES
    Ex Parte Meador, 
    597 S.W.2d 372
    (Tex. Crim. App. 1974)……………………………………..…11
    Ex Parte Parker, 
    515 S.W.2d 926
    (Tex. Crim. App. 1974)………………………………….………11
    Ex Parte Shoels, 
    643 S.W.2d 761
    (Tex. App.-San Antonio, 1982)…………………….…………11
    Hobbs v. State, 
    801 S.W.2d 198
    (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.], 1990)……………………..11
    RULES
    Rule 66.3 (c), Tex. Rule App. Proc…..………………………………………………………………………8
    iv
    STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT
    Counsel for the appellant would submit that in the event that this petition is
    granted, oral argument would be warranted inasmuch as the issue to be resolved by this
    Court is novel and worthy of oral argument on the issue presented.
    v
    TABLE OF INTERESTED PARTIES
    Hon. Russell Wilson…………………………………………………Trial Court Judge
    218th District Court
    Floresville Texas
    Stephen C. Barrera……………………………………………………Applicant’s Trial Counsel
    Attorney at Law
    1433 3rd Street
    Floresville, Texas, 78114
    Audrey Louis……………………………………………………………..State’s Trial Counsel
    District Attorney’s Office
    1327 3rd Street
    Floresville, Texas 78114
    Marc Ledet…………………………………………………………………Appellee’s Counsel
    District Attorney’s Office
    1327 3rd Street
    Floresville, Texas 78114
    Edward F. Shaughnessy, III…………………………………………..Appellant’s Counsel
    Attorney at Law
    206 E. Locust
    San Antonio, Texas 78212
    vi
    EX PARTE: GREG SAUL,                      §                    IN THE COURT OF
    Appellant                                 §                    CRIMINAL APPEALS
    §                    AUSTIN, TEXAS
    ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
    OF THE APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARYREVIEW
    OF CAUSE NUMBER 04-15-00093-CR
    TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS:
    NOW COMES, Greg Saul, applicant in the trial Court and appellant in the lower
    Court, by and through, Edward F. Shaughnessy, III, attorney at law, and offers the
    following arguments and authorities in support of his request that this Court grant his
    request for a Petition for Discretionary Review in the instant case.
    NATURE OF THE CASE
    The appellant, Greg Saul, was arrested by law enforcement authorities pursuant
    to a warrant, arising out of the State of Oklahoma. Saul subsequently filed a Writ of
    Habeas Corpus to contest the validity of the warrant from the State of Oklahoma in
    Cause No. 15-01-002-HCW.         On February 13, 2015 the 81st/218th District Court
    conducted an evidentiary hearing pursuant to the Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Saul.
    At the conclusion of the hearing the trial Court denied the relief requested by Saul and
    entered a written order authorizing the extradition of the applicant to the State of
    Oklahoma. Notice of appeal was subsequently filed in the trial Court and an appeal to
    the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Court of Appeals District was pursued. That court
    6
    affirmed the order of the trial court in an unpublished memorandum opinion, authored
    by Justice Chapa, on July 1, 2015.
    PROCEDURAL HISTORY OF THE CASE IN THE LOWER COURT
    On July 1, 2015, the San Antonio Court of Appeals, in an unpublished opinion,
    authored by Justice Chapa, affirmed the judgment of the trial court in all respects. Ex
    Parte Greg Saul (No.04-15-00093-CR, Tex. App.-San Antonio, July 1, 2015) (Appendix
    A) The instant petition has been filed in the Fourth Court of Appeals along with a
    request for a stay of mandate pursuant to Rule 31.4(a), Tex. R. App. Proc. At the time
    this document is being compiled, the appellant’s request for a stay of the mandate has
    yet to be presented to the Fourth Court of Appeals; hence there has been no ruling by
    that Court on that request. The appellant would submit that there exists one ground for
    review that warrants review by this Court. It is urged by the appellant that there exist, at
    a minimum, two distinct reasons for reviewing the action of the Court of Appeals for the
    Fourth Court of Appeals District.
    7
    REASON FOR REVIEW
    The appellant respectfully petitions this Honorable Court to grant this Petition
    for Discretionary Review pursuant to Rule 66.3 (c), Tex. R. App. Proc. which states that
    one of the non-exclusive reasons for this Court to grant a petition for discretionary
    review is that the Court of Appeals has decided an important question of state law in a
    way that conflicts with the applicable decisions of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The
    appellant would respectfully submit that the opinion of the Fourth Court of Appeals is in
    conflict with the applicable decisions of this Court.
    8
    GROUND FOR REVIEW
    THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT
    THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT THE HEARING ON
    THE APPELLANT’S WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
    WAS SUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE
    APPELLANT WAS THE INDIVIDUAL NAMED IN THE
    GOVERNOR’S WARRANT
    APPLICABLE FACTS
    As noted previously the appellant filed a writ of habeas corpus challenging the
    validity of the request of the demanding State of Oklahoma to extradite him to that
    state. Included in that challenge, was a sworn assertion by the appellant that he was not
    the person named in the requisition issued by the demanding State of Oklahoma. (C.R.-
    6)
    In response to the allegation in the appellant’s writ of habeas corpus, which
    asserted that he
    was not the individual named in the Governor’s Warrant, the State of
    Texas produced and the trial Court admitted into evidence, State’s Exhibit No. 1. (R.R.2-
    8) In addition, the State brought forth the testimony of three witnesses to counter the
    appellant’s contention that he was not the individual named in the Governor’s warrant.
    Sandra Ruiz testified that she was a latent fingerprint examiner for the San
    Antonio Police Department and had, as part of her duties, taken fingerprints of the
    applicant on the day of the hearing. Ruiz also was able to relate that she had compared
    the applicant’s known fingerprints to a another document contained within the
    Governor’s warrant and had concluded that the fingerprints were that of the applicant.
    9
    (R.R.2-14, 15) The identifying documents contained within the Governor’s Warrant
    consist of photographs taken in the Wilson County jail on the day of his arrest on
    December 27, 2014 along with the fingerprints obtained on that same date. The
    documents authorities in Cleveland County, Oklahoma indicating that a given individual
    has been arrested and is confined in the Wilson County Jail.
    Thomas Silva of the Wilson County Sheriff’s Department testified that he had the
    occasion to arrest the applicant on the out-of-state warrant at which time the applicant
    identified himself as Gregory Saul. (R.R. 2-20)
    The State was allowed to reopen after initially resting on the evidentiary portion
    of the hearing. Upon re-opening the State re-called Deputy Silva and through his
    testimony introduced a video recording of the applicant taken at the time of his arrest at
    which time he informed Silva of his name (Gregory Saul Sr.) and date of birth (3/13/47).
    (R.R.3-8)
    The final testimony on the issue of identity came through the testimony of Israel
    Briones a fingerprint expert with the Special Prosecution Unit. (R.R.3-8) According to
    Briones, the fingerprints of the applicant were found on a document forwarded from the
    demanding State of Oklahoma. That document purported to contain certain identifiers
    regarding the applicant. (R.R.3-14, 15)
    Following the close of the testimony the trial Court entered a written order in
    which he denied the appellant the relief requested in the writ of habeas corpus and
    ordered that he be returned to the demanding state of Oklahoma. (C.R.-14)
    An appeal was pursued, in a timely fashion, to the Fourth Court of Appeals in
    which a single point of error was raised by the applicant/appellant. The point of error
    10
    being that the State of Texas had failed to demonstrate that the applicant was the
    individual named in the Governor’s Warrant.
    The opinion of the court below rejected the argument presented by the
    applicant/appellant regarding the sufficiency of the evidence on the issue of the identity
    of the individual named in the Governor’s warrant. The Court reasoned as follows:
    The State’s undisputed evidence was sufficient to establish
    that the photograph and fingerprints in Exhibit 6 belong to
    the person who is the subject of demand for extradition and
    the Governor’s warrant. The State further established that
    the fingerprints in Exhibit 6 are those of appellant. That,
    together with the evidence that the appellant identified
    himself as being Gregory Allan Saul Sr. and having the same
    birth date as the person named in the named in the warrant,
    is sufficient to support the trial court’s finding that the
    ppellant is the individual sought by the State of Oklahoma.
    Accordingly, the trial court did not err in denying habeas relief,
    and we affirm the trial court’s order.
    Ex Parte Saul, slip op. pg. 3 (Appendix)
    ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES
    IN SUPPORT OF THE GROUND
    FOR REVIEW
    This Court has consistently held that, in a extradition matter, such as the case at
    hand, that if the applicant “places his identity in issue” through a sworn denial in a writ
    of habeas corpus, that he is the individual named in the Governor’s warrant, then the
    burden shifts to the State to bring forth sufficient proof that the applicant is the identical
    person named in the Governor’s warrant. Ex Parte Meador, 
    597 S.W.2d 372
    (Tex. Crim.
    App. 1974); Ex Parte Parker, 
    515 S.W.2d 926
    (Tex. Crim. App. 1974). This rule of law
    has been consistently adhered to by the intermediate appellate courts of this State. See
    11
    generally: Hobbs v. State, 
    801 S.W.2d 198
    (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.], 1990); Ex
    Parte Shoels, 
    643 S.W.2d 761
    (Tex. App.-San Antonio, 1982).
    The applicant in the instant matter properly placed his identity in issue as noted
    by the trial Court and the Court below. Hence, the State carried the burden of proving,
    to the satisfaction of the trial Court, that the applicant was the identical person named
    in the Governor’s warrant. The court below held that the State met their burden on the
    issue. The appellant would submit that the conclusion of the lower Court is erroneous
    and in conflict with the above-cited holdings of this Court.
    In reaching its conclusion the Court below relied on the State’s production of
    State’s exhibit number six, which was admitted into evidence at the hearing on the
    applicant’s writ of habeas corpus after the State was allowed to re-open their case. That
    exhibit, and the testimony of Investigator Briones regarding the exhibit, does not tend to
    establish that the applicant is the identical person named in the Governor’s Warrant.
    There is nothing contained in that exhibit that refers to the Governor’s Warrant. It does
    not reference the Governor’s Warrant in any fashion. It merely demonstrates that
    Gregory Alan Saul, Sr. was at one point arrested, apparently on February 2, 2012. There
    is no indication that that arrest references the charges which led to the issuance of the
    Governor’s Warrant.
    With respect to the purported link between the applicant and the Governor’s
    Warrant provided by the statement of the applicant at the time of his arrest, it is crucial
    to note that the applicant admitted to being an individual named Gregory Saul Sr. with a
    date of birth of March 13, 1947. He did not admit to being the individual being sought
    by the demanding State of Oklahoma, or being the individual named in an as of yet not
    created Governor’s Warrant.
    12
    The remainder of the proof brought forth by the State consisted of nothing more
    than authorities in the asylum State (Wilson County Sheriff’s Department) notifying the
    authorities in the demanding State (Cleveland County District Attorney’s Office) that
    they had in their custody someone they believed to be wanted in the demanding State
    and the demanding State’s subsequent confirmation of that belief. That fails to
    demonstrate as is required by this Court’s holdings, that the applicant was the identical
    person named in the Governor’s Warrant.
    Consequently, the holding of the Court below is in conflict with the applicable
    holdings of this Court and review should be granted.
    13
    CONCLUSION AND PRAYER
    It is respectfully requested, by the appellant, that a petition for discretionary
    review to the Fourth Court of Appeals be granted and that the case be briefed on the
    merits of the appellant’s ground for review with argument to follow.
    Respectfully submitted,
    ________/s/_________
    EDWARD F. SHAUGHNESSY, III
    Attorney at Law
    206 E. Locust
    San Antonio, Texas 78212
    (210) 212-6700
    (210) 212-2178 (fax)
    SBN 18134500
    Shaughnessy727@gmail.com
    Attorney for the Appellant
    14
    CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
    I, Edward F. Shaughnessy, III., certify that a copy of the foregoing petition was
    mailed to Rene Pena, District Attorney, 81st/218th Judicial District, 1327 3rd Street
    Floresville, Texas 78026, on this the _15__ day of July, 2015.
    __________/s/_____________
    Edward F. Shaughnessy, III
    CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
    I, Edward F. Shaughnessy, III certify that a copy of the foregoing petition was
    mailed to Lisa McMinn, State Prosecuting Attorney, P.O. Box 78711, Austin, Texas
    78711, on this the _15__ day of July, 2015.
    _________/s/_____________
    Edward F. Shaughnessy, III.
    CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
    I, Edward F. Shaughnessy, III certify that the instant pleading consists of 2291
    words, excluding the contents of the appendix.
    _________/s/_____________
    15
    Edward F. Shaughnessy, III
    APPENDIX A
    16
    Fourth Court of Appeals
    San Antonio, Texas
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    No. 04-15-00093-CR
    EX PARTE Greg SAUL
    From the 218th Judicial District Court, Wilson County, Texas
    Trial Court No. 15-01-002-HCW
    Honorable Russell Wilson, Judge Presiding
    Opinion by:       Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
    Sitting:          Karen Angelini, Justice
    Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
    Jason Pulliam, Justice
    Delivered and Filed: July 1, 2015
    AFFIRMED
    Greg Saul appeals the trial court’s order denying relief in Saul’s application for a writ of
    habeas corpus challenging extradition. Saul’s sole issue is that the evidence is insufficient to show
    that he is the individual named in the governor’s warrant and the extradition request received from
    the State of Oklahoma.
    An applicant for habeas corpus may assert he is not the person named in the request for
    extradition. Wright v. State, 
    717 S.W.2d 485
    , 487 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1986, no pet.). Once
    identity is in issue, the burden shifts to the demanding state to prove the correct individual is being
    held for extradition. Ex parte Smith, 
    36 S.W.3d 927
    , 928 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2001, no pet.).
    Identity need not be shown beyond a reasonable doubt in a habeas proceeding. Ex parte Martinez,
    
    530 S.W.2d 578
    , 580-82 (Tex. Crim. App. 1975).
    04-15-00093-CR
    The trial court held a hearing on Saul’s application, in which he alleged he was “not the
    person named in the request for extradition.” The trial court admitted into evidence State’s Exhibit
    1, which included a warrant signed by Governor Greg Abbott reciting that Oklahoma had requested
    the State of Texas arrest “Gregory Alan Saul, Sr.,” and deliver him to Oklahoma authorities and
    the request for extradition from the Governor of Oklahoma. The supporting documents in State’s
    Exhibit 1 reflect that in February 2012, the District Attorney of Cleveland County, Oklahoma
    charged Gregory Alan Saul Sr. with three counts of first degree rape, two counts of second degree
    rape, two counts of forcible oral sodomy, willful solicitation of a minor to participate/distribute
    child pornography, and engaging in a pattern of criminal offenses. The documents state that
    Gregory Alan Saul Sr., whose date of birth is March 13, 1947, was arrested on February 20, 2012,
    in Cleveland County, and bond was set. State’s Exhibit 1 contains an amended information, filed
    in Cleveland County in 2013, which added additional charges against Saul, and the affidavit of the
    Cleveland County District Attorney, which states Saul fled the jurisdiction.
    State’s Exhibit 1 also included a photograph and fingerprints of Gregory Alan Saul Sr.
    However, these documents were created in Wilson County, Texas, in December 2014, when Saul
    was arrested and refused to waive extradition. State’s Exhibit 1 did not include any photograph or
    fingerprints created in Oklahoma. At the close of the evidence, Saul argued the evidence was
    insufficient to support a finding that appellant was the individual who had been charged in
    Oklahoma. The court recessed the proceedings without making a ruling.
    The following day, the trial court granted the State’s motion to reopen the evidence. The
    State introduced an audio recording of appellant’s December 2014 arrest in Texas. On the
    recording, appellant states his full name is Gregory Alan Saul Sr. and that his date of birth is March
    13, 1947. The State also introduced, without objection, State’s Exhibit 6, a packet of documents
    from the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation, Identification Division. The packet contains
    -2-
    04-15-00093-CR
    information, fingerprints, and a photograph received by that office on February 24, 2012, from the
    District Attorney of Cleveland County, Oklahoma. The fingerprint card is a form of the Oklahoma
    State Bureau of Investigation, is dated February 24, 2012, contains the name “Gregory Alan Saul,
    Sr.” and a date of birth of March 13, 1947, and lists the charges against Saul as: three counts of
    first degree rape, two counts of second degree rape, two counts of forcible sodomy, solicitation of
    a minor for indecent exposure/obscene material, and engaging in a pattern of criminal offenses.
    Israel Brionez, Jr., a fingerprint expert, testified for the State. Brionez testified that he
    obtained fingerprints from appellant earlier that day. Those prints were admitted as State’s Exhibit
    7. Brionez testified he compared the fingerprints in Exhibit 7 that he took from appellant with
    those taken from Gregory Alan Saul Sr. in Oklahoma in February 2012 and found on Exhibit 6.
    Brionez testified that the fingerprints on the two exhibits belong to the same individual.
    The State’s undisputed evidence was sufficient to establish that the photograph and
    fingerprints in Exhibit 6 belong to the person who is the subject of demand for extradition and the
    Governor’s warrant. The State further established that the fingerprints in Exhibit 6 are those of
    appellant. That, together with the evidence that appellant identified himself as being Gregory Alan
    Saul Sr. and having the same birth date as the person named in the warrant, is sufficient to support
    the trial court’s finding that appellant is the individual sought by the State of Oklahoma.
    Accordingly, the trial court did not err in denying habeas relief, and we affirm the trial court’s
    order.
    Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
    DO NOT PUBLISH
    -3-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: PD-0936-15

Filed Date: 8/14/2015

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021