Ex Parte Keith Yarbrough ( 2016 )

Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-15-00672-CR
EX PARTE KEITH YARBROUGH
From the Criminal District Court, Magistrate Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2015W0344
Honorable Andrew Carruthers, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Jason Pulliam, Justice
Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice
Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Jason Pulliam, Justice
Delivered and Filed: April 20, 2016
AFFIRMED
Keith Yarbrough was arrested in Bexar County, Texas pursuant to a warrant from the
State of Michigan charging him with the offense of failure to pay child support. Yarbrough filed
an application for writ of habeas corpus to contest the validity of the request for extradition.
Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied habeas relief and ordered Yarbrough
extradited to Michigan.
UNDERLYING FACTS
At the evidentiary hearing, the State called one witness, Patricia Nava, a Bexar County
Sheriff Deputy. Through Nava’s testimony, the State introduced the Governor’s Warrant issued
by the State of Michigan and supporting documents, which included a picture of Yarbrough, the
criminal complaint and an arrest warrant. Yarbrough did not object to the authenticity of the
04-15-00672-CR
documents or their admission into evidence. Yarbrough was given the opportunity to cross
examine Officer Nava to present defense and supporting evidence. Through this cross-
examination, Yarbrough contested the Governor’s Warrant and supporting documents.
Yarbrough’s challenges to any extradition and to the supporting documents focused on the issue
whether the charged offense is a crime in Texas and the accuracy or validity of the form of the
complaint, as it is different than the form used in Texas. Yarbrough presented no other witness
or evidence.
ANALYSIS
On appeal, Yarbrough contends the trial court abused its discretion by ordering his
extradition because the supporting documents submitted with the Governor’s Warrant were
defective, and this defect defeated the State’s prima facie case for extradition. Specifically,
Yarbrough contends the warrant number associated with the criminal complaint is “12-61520
FY”; however, the supporting documents reflect that Yarbrough was in custody in Michigan
under warrant number “11-5646”. Yarbrough contends these documents show he was arrested
in Michigan pursuant to a warrant different than the warrant contained within the supporting
documents presented at the habeas hearing, and therefore, the State’s proof failed to comply with
the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA).
Standard of Review
An appellate court will review a trial court’s order of extradition ruling on a writ of habeas
corpus under an abuse of discretion standard. Kniatt v. State, 206 S.W.3d 657, 664 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2006); Ex parte Packer, 14-09-00493-CR, 2009 WL 3210693, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston
[14th Dist.] Oct. 8, 2009, pet. filed) (mem. op.) (unpublished). Appellant bears the burden to
prove he is entitled to the relief sought by a preponderance of the evidence. Kniatt, 206 S.W.3d
-2-
04-15-00672-CR
at 664. The evidence is reviewed in the light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling. Id. A
reviewing court should affirm the trial court’s decision if it is correct on any legal theory
applicable to the case. Ex parte Primrose, 950 S.W.2d 775, 778 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1997,
pet. ref’d).
Applicable Law
In conducting an extradition hearing, the asylum state, in this case Texas, may do no more
than determine whether the requisites of the UCEA have been satisfied. Ex parte Kahn, 04-07-
00805-CR, 2008 WL 2037418, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio May 14, 2008, no pet.) (mem.
op.) (unpublished). The State establishes a prima facie case that the UCEA requirements have
been satisfied by introducing into evidence a Governor’s Warrant that “is regular on its face”
and certain accompanying documents listed within Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article
51.13. Id.; see Ex parte Rosenthal, 515 S.W.2d 114, 116 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); TEX. CODE
CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 51.13 § 3 (West 2014). Because the statutory requirements for the
supporting papers are disjunctive, it is not necessary all the instruments listed in Art. 51.13, Sec.
3 accompany the warrant and demand for extradition. Ex parte Mason, 656 S.W.2d 470, 471
(Tex. Crim. App. 1983). The intent and purpose of Art. 51.13, Sec. 3 is satisfied if at least one
of the listed instruments accompany the demand. Id.
Once the State introduces into evidence a Governor’s Warrant that is regular on its face,
the burden shifts to the applicant to defeat the State’s prima facie case. Ex parte Mason, 656
S.W.2d at 471. The applicant can defeat the State’s prima facie case by proving the warrant was
not legally issued, is not based on proper authority, or its recitals are inadequate. Ex parte
Lekavich, 145 S.W.3d 699, 701 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2004, no pet.).
-3-
04-15-00672-CR
Application
Review of the record reveals the State satisfied its burden of proof to show satisfaction of
the UCEA by admitting into evidence the Governor’s Warrant from Michigan that is regular on its
face. Given the opportunity to defeat the State’s prima facie case, Yarbrough’s challenges to the
validity of the request for extradition and to the order of the Governor’s Warrant were different
than the challenge presented on appeal. For the first time on appeal, Yarbrough complains the
Michigan arrest warrant number was different than the warrant number on the documents
supporting the Governor’s Warrant. Yarbrough failed to present this challenge at the habeas
hearing to provide the trial court the opportunity to rule on this specific point. Because Yarbrough
did not present this challenge, the trial court did not make a ruling, and nothing is presented for
review on appeal. See Babb v. State, 868 S.W.2d 3, 4-5 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1993, no pet.); Ex
parte Kahn, 2008 WL 2037418, at *1; Shumate v. State, C14-87--69-CR, 1987 WL 8296, at *1
(Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Mar. 19, 1987, no pet.) (unpublished).
For this reason, Yarbrough’s sole issue on appeal is overruled. The trial court’s order of
extradition is affirmed.
Jason Pulliam, Justice
DO NOT PUBLISH
-4-