EX PARTE CAMPBELL v. << (2017)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Joshua Campbell appeals the trial court's order denying relief in his application for writ of habeas corpus, in which Campbell challenged his extradition. Campbell's sole issue is that the evidence is insufficient to show he is the individual named in the Governor's Warrant and extradition request received from the State of Washington. We affirm the trial court's order.

BACKGROUND

Campbell was arrested for speeding and, pursuant to an out-of-state warrant from Washington, later placed in the Bexar County Adult Detention Center. Campbell filed an application for writ of habeas corpus, arguing he is not the person named in the request for extradition issued by the State of Washington. After a hearing, the trial court denied Campbell's request for relief and ordered that he be extradited. Campbell appeals.

DISCUSSION

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 disputed, 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).

The trial court held a hearing on Campbell's application. The trial court admitted into evidence a Governor's Warrant commanding the arrest of a fugitive named “Joshua Lee Campbell aka Joshua L. Campbell aka Joshua Lee,” based on the request of the governor of Washington. The request from the State of Washington included a photograph of the fugitive, a photocopy of his fingerprints, and notations regarding his sex, race, height, weight, and eye and hair color. Roxanna Rosas, a fingerprint examiner for the Bexar County Sheriff's Office, testified she took the fingerprints of Campbell and compared them to the fingerprints in the extradition request. Rosas testified Campbell's fingerprints and the fugitive's fingerprints in the extradition request “belong to the same individual.”

Rosas's testimony that Campbell's fingerprints matched the fingerprints of the individual sought by the State of Washington is sufficient to establish Campbell's identity as the fugitive. See Ex parte Smith, 36 S.W.3d 927, 928 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2001, no pet.) (holding testimony regarding an examiner's fingerprint comparison can establish identity). Furthermore, Campbell was present at the hearing and the trial court was able to compare Campbell's physical appearance to the photograph and physical description of the fugitive. See Ex parte Nelson, 594 S.W.2d 67, 68 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979 [Panel Op.] ) (holding a photograph of person is evidence establishing an individual is the person named in the Governor's Warrant). We hold there is sufficient evidence to establish Campbell is the person who is the subject of demand for extradition and the Governor's Warrant.

CONCLUSION

We affirm the trial court's order.

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice