Trevino Darnell Fox v. State ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                             ACCEPTED
    03-15-00012-CR
    4663071
    THIRD COURT OF APPEALS
    AUSTIN, TEXAS
    3/26/2015 4:37:32 PM
    JEFFREY D. KYLE
    CLERK
    No. 03—15—00012—CR
    IN THE TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS       FILED IN
    3rd COURT OF APPEALS
    THIRD DISTRICT            AUSTIN, TEXAS
    AT AUSTIN           3/26/2015 4:37:32 PM
    JEFFREY D. KYLE
    Clerk
    EX PARTE TREVINO DARNELL FOX
    Appeal from Cause Number D-1-DC—14—100177
    331st Judicial District Court, Austin, Travis County, Texas
    Honorable David Crain, Judge Presiding
    APPELLANT’S BRIEF
    TO THE HONORABLE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS:
    Comes now Appellant Trevino Darnell Fox, by and through his appointed
    counsel Paul M. Evans, and files this, his Appellant’s Brief, in compliance with
    the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.
    APPELLANT HEREBY REQUESTS ORAL ARGUMENT.
    Respectfully submitted,
    ___/s/ Paul M. Evans_____________
    Paul M. Evans
    Attorney for Appellant
    811 Nueces Street
    Austin, Texas 78701
    (512) 569-1418
    (512) 692-8002 FAX
    paulmatthewevans@hotmail.com
    SBN 24038885
    1
    Identities of the Parties and Counsel
    Presiding Judge:                    Honorable David Crain
    Honorable Magistrate Leon Grizzard
    Appellant:                          Trevino Darnell Fox
    Trial Counsel:                      Paul M. Evans
    811 Nueces Street
    Austin, Texas 78701
    Alexandra Gauthier
    505 W. 12th Street, Ste. 204
    Austin, TX 78701
    Appellate Counsel:                  Paul M. Evans
    811 Nueces Street
    Austin, Texas 78701
    Appellee:                           State of Texas
    Trial Counsel:                      Dayna Blazey
    Assistant District Attorney
    Travis County District Attorney
    P.O. Box 1748
    Austin, Texas 78767
    Lead Appellate Counsel:             Rosemary Lehmberg
    District Attorney
    c/o Appellate Division
    Travis County District Attorney
    P.O. Box 1748
    Austin, Texas 78767
    2
    Table of Contents
    Identity of Parties and Counsel                                     2
    Table of Contents                                                   3
    Index of Authorities                                                4
    Statement of the Case                                               5
    Issue Presented                                                     6
    Statement of Facts                                                  6
    Summary of Arguments                                                12
    Issue Number One—The trial court abused its discretion by denying   12
    Appellant’s application for writ of habeas corpus.
    Prayer                                                              15
    Certificate of Service                                              16
    Certificate of Compliance                                           16
    3
    Index of Authorities
    Federal Cases
    California v. Superior Court, 
    482 U.S. 400
    (1987)………………………13
    Michigan v. Doran, 
    439 U.S. 282
    (1978)……………………………..13-14
    New Mexico ex rel. Ortiz v. Reed, 
    524 U.S. 151
    (1998)……………....….13
    Texas State Statutes
    Government Code § 54.976……………………………………………..…4
    Texas Cases
    Ex parte Brown, 
    450 S.W.2d 647
    (Tex.Crim.App. 1970)…………….….14
    Ex parte Cain, 
    592 S.W.2d 359
    (Tex.Crim.App. 1980)…………..….14-15
    Ex parte Chapman, 
    601 S.W.2d 380
    (Tex.Crim.App. 1980)……………14
    Ibarra v. State, 
    961 S.W.2d 415
    (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.]
    1997, no pet.)…………………………………………………………….14
    State ex rel. Holmes v. Klevenhagen, 
    819 S.W.2d 539
    (Tex.Crim.
    App. 1991)………...…………………………………………………..…13
    Kniatt v. State, 
    206 S.W.3d 657
    (Tex.Crim.App. 2006)……………...…14
    Ex parte Lancaster, 
    501 S.W.2d 904
    (Tex.Crim.App. 1973)…………...14
    Ex parte Lekavich, 
    145 S.W.3d 699
    (Tex.App.—Ft. Worth 2004,
    no pet.)………………………………………………………………..…13
    Ex parte Sanchez, 
    642 S.W.2d 809
    (Tex.Crim.App. 1982)………....14-15
    Washington v. State, 
    326 S.W.3d 701
    (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.]
    2010, no pet.)……………………………………………………………14
    4
    Statement of the Case
    On October 21, 2014, Governor Terry E. Branstad of the State of Iowa
    submitted to the Governor’s Office of the State of Texas a request for interstate
    rendition for Appellant, Trevino Darnell Fox. On October 31, 2014, Governor Rick
    Perry issued a Texas Governor’s warrant to extradite Appellant from Texas to
    Iowa. The warrant was forwarded to the Sheriff of Travis County, where Appellant
    was being held in custody. RR3 SX #1; CR1 7-8, 10.1 Through appointed
    counsel,2 Appellant filed a “Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus—Extradition
    Proceedings.” CR1 3-141. On December 17, 2014, the Honorable Leon Grizzard,
    District Court Magistrate for Travis County, entertained a hearing on the
    application and denied the requested relief. The trial court adopted the findings,
    conclusions, and recommendations of the magistrate. RR2 4-11; CR1 142-3; see
    Tex. Gov’t. Code § 54.976(a)(4). Appellant filed timely notice of appeal. CR1
    144. This appeal follows from the denial of habeas relief.
    1
    Introduced into evidence as SX #1, the Governor’s Warrant and supporting materials were also
    included in the Clerk’s Record, appended to Appellant’s petition for habeas relief as “Exhibit A.”
    RR2 5-6; RR3 SX #1; CR1 6-138. In the present Brief, for ease of reference, citations to
    specific matters found in the Governor’s Warrant and supporting materials shall refer to the
    identical copy found in the Clerk’s Record, which offers the benefit of numeric pagination.
    2
    Appellant was originally represented by Alexandra Gauthier, who filed the “Petition for Writ of
    Habeas Corpus” on Appellant’s behalf. The undersigned counsel was appointed to relieve Ms.
    Gauthier of her duties after she subsequently accepted employment as a magistrate in
    Williamson County. RR2 4.
    5
    Issue Presented
    Issue Number One—The trial court abused its discretion by denying
    Appellant’s application for the writ of habeas corpus: The supporting
    documentation provided to the Governor of Texas by the Governor of Iowa
    contained an inaccurate recital, namely, that Appellant was in the custody of the
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin police department at the time of the demand for requisition.
    The Governor’s Warrant was therefore invalid. The trial court abused its discretion
    by denying Appellant’s request for relief by way of an application for writ of
    habeas corpus.
    Statement of Facts
    On August 27, 2014, Appellant was arrested on unrelated matters in Travis
    County, Texas. A fugitive from justice detainer was filed against Appellant on
    September 3, 2014. CR1 3, 140-1. On October 21, 2014, Governor Terry E.
    Branstad of the State of Iowa submitted to the Governor’s Office of the State of
    Texas a request for interstate rendition for Appellant, who stood charged with
    violating the terms of his probation after his conviction for “Possession of
    Marijuana with Intent to Deliver, Failure to Affix Drug Tax Stamp, Fa[il]ure to
    Appear—Voluntary Absence, [and] Failure to Appear for BEP / Assault D/A
    Causing Injury.” CR1 10. In response to Governer Branstad’s requisition demand,
    Governor Rick Perry issued a governor’s extradition warrant on October 31, 2014.
    The warrant states the following:
    TO ALL SHERIFFS AND OTHER PEACE OFFICERS OF
    THIS STATE:
    WHEREAS it has been represented to me by the Governor of the
    State of IOWA that TREVINO DARNELL FOX, fugitive, stands
    convicted of the crime of POSSESSION OF MARIJUANA WITH
    6
    INTENT TO DELIVER, FAILURE TO AFFIX DRUG TAX
    STAMP, FAILURE TO APPEAR-VOLUNTARY ABSENCE,
    FAILURE TO APPEAR FOR BEP I ASSAULT D/A CAUSING
    INJURY committed in said State, and thereafter violated the terms
    of his probation, fled from the justice of that State, and has taken
    refuge in the State of Texas, and the said Governor of IOWA having,
    in pursuance of the Constitution and laws of the United States and of
    the State of Texas, demanded of me that I shall cause the said fugitive
    to be arrested and delivered to SHERIFF TONY THOMPSON OR
    A DESIGNEE OF BLACKHAWK COUNTY, hereby authorized to
    receive into custody and convey the fugitive back to said State; and
    WHEREAS the said representation and demand is accompanied by a
    copy of the INFORMATION, AFFIDAVIT, AND WARRANT
    certified by the Governor of said State to be authentic, whereby the
    said fugitive is convicted of said crime;
    THEREFORE, I, Rick Perry, Governor of Texas, by this warrant
    command you to arrest and secure the said fugitive, wherever he may
    be found within this State, and to deliver said fugitive into the custody
    of said agent(s), to be taken back to said State from which he fled,
    pursuant to the said requisition, there to be dealt with according to
    law.
    CR1 8 (emphasis in original).
    The supporting materials on record include the request for requisition
    submitted by the local prosecuting authority to the Governor of Iowa. This request
    is accompanied by an affidavit by a probation officer, along with attached
    supporting documents incorporated by reference. CR1 12-136. The request
    addressed to the Governor of Iowa—sworn to by Kim Griffith, Prosecuting
    Attorney—recites the following:
    7
    Pursuant to the Iowa Code Section 820.23, I hereby request
    issuance of a requisition for the extradition of Trevino Darnell Fox
    who stands convicted of the crime(s) of:
    FECR145468: Ct. I: Possession of Marijuana With Intent
    to Deliver, and
    Ct. II: Failure to Affix Drug Tax Stamp;
    FECR165748: Failure to Appear-Voluntary Absence;
    SRCR116395: Failure to Appear for BEP I Assault D/A
    Causing Injury
    by final judgment and sentence of the First Judicial District, Court of
    Black Hawk County, State of lowa, but who since conviction and
    release on probation, as more fully appears in the attached
    judgment /sentence /order, failed to abide by probation, as appears
    from the attached:
    Sentencing Order(s), Probation Violation Report; and
    Warrant(s) for Arrest; and who is now a fugitive from justice, known
    to be in the city of Austin county of Travis, State of Texas. The ends
    of justice require that the fugitive be returned to Iowa.
    In my opinion, the facts stated in the attached Probation
    Violation Report are true and correct and would result in revocation of
    probation.
    I nominate Sheriff Tony Thompson or Designee to be appointed
    agent( s) to bring the fugitive back to Iowa and I certify that these
    proposed agent(s) have not private interest in the arrest
    and return to Iowa of his fugitive. This application for requisition is
    not made to enforce a private claim.
    CR1 12. In turn, this sworn request is supported by an affidavit, dated September
    30, 2014, which recites the following:
    I, Nick McGivern, being duly sworn, state that I am a Probation
    / Parole Officer II in Black Hawk County, Waterloo Iowa. In my
    official investigation, I have determined that the approximate
    8
    circumstances surrounding the commission of the offense charged in
    this case are as follows:
    Report of Violation of Probation. The Defendant is in the
    custody of the Milwaukee County, Milwaukee Wisconsin
    Police Department.
    The following supporting documents are attached and
    incorporated by this reference:
    Probation Violation Report, a certified copy of which is
    attached.
    Warrant for Arrest, a certified copy of which is attached.
    Judgment I Sentencing Order, a certified copy of which is
    attached.
    The following material identifying the Defendant is attached
    and incorporated by this reference:
    XX Fingerprint card (copy)
    XX Photograph
    ___Physical Description of Defendant
    ___No Identification Material Available
    CR1 13 (emphasis in original).
    With regards to the charge of Possession of Marijuana With Intent to
    Deliver, the supporting documentation incorporated by reference includes the
    following: the trial information, supplemental trial information, the sentence, a
    violation report, an order for warrant and addendum, a revocation order, another
    violation report, an arrest warrant, and an order for warrant, all filed in the matter
    of State v. Trevino Fox, cause number FECR145468, Black Hawk County, Iowa.
    CR1 14-32. With regards to the offense of Assault Domestic Abuse Causing
    9
    Injury, the supporting documentation includes the following: the trial information,
    the judgment and sentence, an order for warrant, a probation violation and
    addendum, an arrest warrant and addendum, an order for “PPV” warrant and
    addendum, an order modifying probation, an order for warrant, and an arrest
    warrant, all filed in the matter of State v. Trevino Fox, cause number
    SRCR116395, Black Hawk County, Iowa. CR1 33-52. With regards to the offense
    of Failure to Appear—Voluntary Absence, the supporting documentation includes
    a complaint and arrest warrant, filed in the matter of State v. Trevino Fox, cause
    number FECR165748, Black Hawk County, Iowa. CR1 53-5.
    The supporting documentation also includes the following items: a
    fingerprint card, purportedly verified on September 16, 2014, by a custodian of
    records for the Iowa Department of Public Safety, Division of Criminal
    Investigation, Bureau of Identification; an “Arrest History,” twenty-three pages in
    length, apparently compiled by the Black Hawk County Sheriff’s Office; and
    printouts of applicable sections of the Iowa Code that pertain to Appellant’s
    underlying offenses. CR1 56-136.
    In his “Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus,” Appellant alleged in part: “The
    authenticity of the supporting documents cannot be supported by the Secretary of
    State’s certificate which purports to certify the required documentation under
    Chapter 51 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 3[, as] there is no
    10
    information or back up documents pertaining to the presence of Applicant. [sic]”
    The “Petition” then noted the faulty recitation from Nick McGivern’s affidavit,
    “The Defendant is in the custody of the Milwaukee County, Milwaukee Wisconsin
    Police Department.” CR1 3.
    At the hearing before the District Court magistrate, the State introduced the
    Governor’s Warrant—“as issued by the governor of the State of Illinois [sic] and
    the governor of the State of Texas”—and accompanying exhibits into evidence.
    RR2 5-6; RR3 SX #1. The magistrate made a preliminary observation to the effect
    that the documentation “appear[ed] regular on its face.” RR2 6. Trial counsel
    objected to the faulty sworn recitation by Nick McGivern—set out above in full—
    to the effect that Appellant was “in the custody of the Milwaukee County,
    Milwaukee Wisconsin Police Department.” Trial counsel argued that this recital
    ran contrary to the fundamental requirement that a fugitive must be in the state to
    which the extradition request is directed towards, and he requested relief on this
    basis. RR2 6-7; see CR1 13. In response, the State argued that this recital
    constituted “an inadvertent clerical error” and was “superfluous.” RR2 8-9. In
    response to some discussion by the State and the magistrate, trial counsel clarified
    that his objection went to the accuracy of the documentation itself, and that
    Appellant was not mounting a challenge om the issue of identity. Trial counsel
    conceded that the inaccurate recital in question was in all likelihood a “clerical
    11
    error,” but he argued there was “no evidence to support that.” RR2 8-10.
    Overruling trial counsel’s objection, the magistrate found the extradition papers to
    be in order, denied habeas relief to Appellant, and ordered his return to the State of
    Iowa. RR2 10-11. The following day, the trial court approved the findings and
    recommendations of the magistrate. CR1 142-3. Appellant filed timely notice of
    appeal. CR1 144. This appeal follows from the denial of habeas relief.
    Summary of Arguments
    The supporting documentation provided to the Governor of Texas by the
    Governor of Iowa contained an inaccurate recital, namely, that Appellant was in
    the custody of the Milwaukee, Wisconsin police department at the time of the
    demand for requisition. The Governor’s Warrant was therefore invalid. The trial
    court abused its discretion by denying Appellant’s request for relief by way of an
    application for writ of habeas corpus.
    Issue Number One
    The trial court abused its discretion by denying Appellant’s application for
    writ of habeas corpus.
    At the hearing on the application for writ of habeas corpus, Appellant met
    his burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the
    documentation in support of the Governor’s Warrant contained an inaccurate
    recital. It is undisputed that Appellant was not in the custody of the Milwaukee,
    12
    Wisconsin police department at the time of the demand for requisition. The
    Governor’s Warrant was therefore invalid. The trial court abused its discretion by
    denying Appellant’s request for relief by way of an application for writ of habeas
    corpus.
    In conducting an extradition hearing, a trial court in the asylum state may do
    no more than determine whether the requisites of the Uniform Criminal Extradition
    Act have been met. New Mexico ex rel. Ortiz v. Reed, 
    524 U.S. 151
    , 153-5 (1998);
    California v. Superior Court of California, 
    482 U.S. 400
    , 408 (1987). A governor’s
    warrant that is regular on its face is prima facie evidence that the requirements for
    extradition have been met. Ex parte Lekavich, 
    145 S.W.3d 699
    , 701 (Tex.App.—
    Ft. Worth 2004, no pet.). Once the governor of an asylum state grants extradition, a
    court considering release on habeas corpus can consider only the following: (1)
    whether the extradition documents on their face are in order; (2) whether the
    petitioner has been charged with a crime in the demanding state; (3) whether the
    petitioner is the person named in the request for extradition; and (4) whether the
    petitioner is a fugitive. Michigan v. Doran, 
    439 U.S. 282
    , 289 (1978); State ex rel.
    Holmes v. Klevenhagen, 
    819 S.W.2d 539
    , 542-3 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991); Ex parte
    
    Lekavich, 145 S.W.3d at 700
    . Once the governor’s warrant, regular on its face, is
    introduced into evidence, the burden shifts to the accused to show the warrant was
    not legally issued, was not based on proper authority, or contains inaccurate
    13
    recitals. Ex parte Cain, 
    592 S.W.2d 359
    , 362 (Tex.Crim.App. 1980); Ibarra v.
    State, 
    961 S.W.2d 415
    , 417 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1997, no pet.).
    The only appropriate vehicle for challenging arrest pursuant to a governor’s
    extradition warrant is through the filing of an application for writ of habeas corpus.
    Ex parte Chapman, 
    601 S.W.2d 380
    , 382-3 (Tex.Crim.App. 1980). A petitioner
    may contest his extradition in a writ of habeas corpus on the basis of any of the
    four issues identified by the Supreme Court in Doran. Ex parte Sanchez, 
    642 S.W.2d 809
    , 811 (Tex.Crim.App. 1982). The petitioner bears the burden to prove
    he is entitled to the relief he seeks by a preponderance of the evidence. Kniatt v.
    State, 
    206 S.W.3d 657
    , 664 (Tex.Crim.App. 2006). “A prima facie case can be
    defeated or supported by the supporting papers introduced, regardless of which
    party may have offered the supporting papers into evidence.” 
    Cain, 592 S.W.2d at 362
    , citing Ex parte Lancaster, 
    501 S.W.2d 904
    (Tex.Crim.App. 1973); Ex parte
    Brown, 
    450 S.W.2d 647
    (Tex.Crim.App. 1970).
    The trial court’s ruling on a pretrial writ of habeas corpus is subject to
    review for abuse of discretion. 
    Kniatt, 206 S.W.3d at 664
    ; Washington v. State, 
    326 S.W.3d 701
    , 704 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, no pet.). In conducting this
    review, the facts are viewed in the light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling.
    See 
    Kniatt, 206 S.W.3d at 664
    ; 
    Washington, 326 S.W.3d at 704
    . If the documents
    from the demanding state do not meet the requirements of the Uniform Criminal
    14
    Extradition Act, the warrant should not issue and the applicant is entitled to a
    discharge. 
    Sanchez, 642 S.W.2d at 811
    .
    In the instant cause, Appellant objected to the inaccurate recital contained in
    the affidavit of Nick McGivern: “The Defendant is in the custody of the
    Milwaukee County, Milwaukee Wisconsin Police Department.” CR1 13. This
    recital “served to defeat the prima facie case established by the Governor's
    Warrant.” Ex parte 
    Cain, 592 S.W.2d at 362
    . Appellant has met his burden and
    proven by a preponderance of the evidence that he was entitled to relief. The trial
    court abused its discretion by denying the application for writ of habeas corpus.
    PRAYER
    WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, for the reasons stated above,
    Appellant prays that this Court find the judgment of the trial court to have been in
    error, and that this Court reverse the judgment of the trial court and order the
    immediate discharge of Appellant. Appellant prays for any and all other general
    relief to which he may be entitled.
    Respectfully submitted,
    __/s/ Paul M. Evans__________
    Paul M. Evans
    811 Nueces Street
    Austin, Texas 78701
    (512) 569-1418
    (512) 692-8002 FAX
    SBN 24038885
    paulmatthewevans@hotmail.com
    15
    CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
    I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing
    Appellant’s Brief was delivered by e-service facsimile to the office of the District
    Attorney of Travis County—mailing address P.O. Box 1748, Austin, TX 78767,
    physical address 509 W. 11th Street, Austin, TX 78701—on the 25th day of March,
    2015.
    ___/s/ Paul M. Evans_____________
    Paul M. Evans
    CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
    Relying on the Microsoft Word 97-2003 Document word count utility, I
    hereby certify that the present document contains 2,277 words, counting all
    contents specifically delineated for inclusion in the applicable word count under
    Tex. Rule App. Proc. § 9.4(i)(1).
    ___/s/ Paul M. Evans_____________
    Paul M. Evans
    16