Trevino Darnell Fox v. State

Citation: Not availableDocket: 03-15-00012-CR

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; March 26, 2015; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Trevino Darnell Fox, the appellant, submits his brief to the Texas Court of Appeals following the denial of his application for a writ of habeas corpus by the 331st Judicial District Court, presided over by Judge David Crain. The appeal originates from extradition proceedings initiated when Iowa's Governor requested Fox's extradition, leading Texas Governor Rick Perry to issue a warrant for his return to Iowa. Following a hearing on December 17, 2014, the district court magistrate, Leon Grizzard, denied Fox's petition for habeas corpus relief, and the trial court subsequently adopted the magistrate's findings. Fox is represented by appointed counsel Paul M. Evans, who has requested oral argument in this appeal. The brief includes sections such as the identity of parties and counsel, a statement of the case, the issue presented, a summary of arguments, and an index of authorities, detailing various federal and Texas cases pertinent to the appeal.

The Governor's Warrant and related materials, introduced as SX #1, are part of the Clerk's Record and attached to the Appellant's habeas relief petition as 'Exhibit A.' Citations in the current Brief will refer to the Clerk's Record for clarity. Initially, Appellant was represented by Alexandra Gauthier, who filed the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus before being replaced by the undersigned counsel after her appointment as a magistrate. 

The key issue raised is that the trial court abused its discretion by denying the Appellant's habeas corpus application, arguing the documentation sent by the Governor of Iowa inaccurately stated that the Appellant was in Milwaukee police custody at the time of the extradition request, rendering the Governor’s Warrant invalid. 

On August 27, 2014, the Appellant was arrested in Travis County, Texas, for unrelated charges, and a fugitive detainer was filed against him on September 3, 2014. Subsequently, Iowa's Governor Terry E. Branstad requested interstate rendition for the Appellant on October 21, 2014, due to probation violations following his conviction for multiple offenses. Governor Rick Perry of Texas issued the extradition warrant on October 31, 2014, commanding law enforcement to arrest the Appellant and return him to Iowa. The warrant references the formal request and accompanying affidavit from Iowa's local prosecuting authority, which includes supporting documentation.

A requisition for extradition has been submitted to the Governor of Iowa by Prosecuting Attorney Kim Griffith, seeking the return of Trevino Darnell Fox, who has been convicted of multiple offenses, including Possession of Marijuana With Intent to Deliver and Failure to Affix Drug Tax Stamp, as well as Failure to Appear for a domestic abuse assault charge. Since his release on probation, Fox has violated the terms and is currently a fugitive located in Austin, Texas. Griffith asserts that the facts in the attached Probation Violation Report support revocation of probation and nominates Sheriff Tony Thompson or a designee as the agent to execute the extradition, certifying that they have no private interest in the matter. 

The request is supported by an affidavit from Probation Officer Nick McGivern, detailing the violation of probation and indicating that Fox is in custody of the Milwaukee County Police Department. Attached documentation includes certified copies of the Probation Violation Report, arrest warrants, judgment and sentencing orders, and identifying materials for Fox, such as a fingerprint card and photograph. Additional documentation related to the offenses includes trial information, violation reports, and various warrants filed in Black Hawk County, Iowa.

In the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Appellant contested the validity of supporting documents certified by the Secretary of State under Texas law, arguing that they lacked necessary information regarding the Applicant's presence. The Petition highlighted inaccuracies in Nick McGivern’s affidavit, specifically that Appellant was stated to be in the custody of the Milwaukee County Police Department. During the district court hearing, the State presented the Governor’s Warrant from Illinois and Texas, which the magistrate preliminarily deemed valid. Appellant's trial counsel objected to the affidavit's errors, asserting that a fugitive must be present in the state where extradition is sought. The State claimed the errors were mere clerical mistakes and not substantive issues. Trial counsel acknowledged the likely clerical nature of the inaccuracies but contended that no evidence supported this claim. The magistrate overruled the objection, found the extradition documents in order, and denied Appellant's habeas relief, ordering his return to Iowa. The trial court later upheld the magistrate's decision. Appellant appealed, arguing that the Governor’s Warrant was invalid due to the inaccurate custody statement and that the trial court abused its discretion by denying habeas relief. It was asserted that Appellant established, by a preponderance of evidence, that he was not in the custody of the Milwaukee Police at the time of the requisition, thus rendering the Governor’s Warrant invalid. The appeal contends that the trial court exceeded its authority by not adhering to the requirements set forth in the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, which allows for limited review of extradition requisites based on the validity of the governor's warrant.

In Ex parte Lekavich, the court outlined the limited scope of review for a habeas corpus petition following the governor's grant of extradition. The court can only assess: 1) the validity of the extradition documents, 2) whether the petitioner has been charged with a crime in the requesting state, 3) the identity of the petitioner as the individual named in the extradition request, and 4) whether the petitioner is a fugitive. The burden of proof shifts to the accused once a facially valid governor’s warrant is presented; they must demonstrate any legal deficiencies in the warrant's issuance. Challenges to extradition must be made through a writ of habeas corpus, and the petitioner must prove their case by a preponderance of the evidence. The trial court's ruling on such a petition is reviewed for abuse of discretion, with facts viewed in favor of the trial court. If the extradition documents fail to meet Uniform Criminal Extradition Act requirements, the warrant should not be issued, entitling the applicant to discharge. In this case, the appellant successfully challenged an inaccurate recital in the extradition affidavit that undermined the prima facie case established by the governor's warrant. Consequently, the trial court abused its discretion by denying the habeas corpus application. The appellant requests reversal of the trial court's judgment and immediate discharge. The document concludes with a certificate of service and compliance by the appellant's attorney.