EXTRADITION

Extradition in Texas: A Deep Dive into Code of Criminal Procedure Articles 51.01–51.13

Extradition is one of the foundational mechanisms of interstate cooperation in the U.S. criminal justice system. Whether an individual has fled Texas to avoid prosecution or Texas is being asked to surrender someone to another state, the process is governed by a blend of constitutional mandates, statutory law, and judicial interpretation.

In Texas, Articles 51.01 to 51.13 of the Code of Criminal Procedure encapsulate how the state implements the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA). These provisions balance state sovereignty, individual rights, and the broader imperative of ensuring that justice does not stop at state lines.

I. Understanding the Statutory Framework

Articles 51.01–51.03: Initiating Extradition from Texas

Article 51.01 authorizes the Governor of Texas to demand the extradition of individuals who have fled from justice in Texas and are located in another state.
Article 51.02 outlines the requirements for making a requisition to another state. This includes presenting an affidavit or indictment demonstrating probable cause.
Article 51.03 expands this to include persons who have escaped from prison, violated parole, or broken bail conditions.

These initial articles empower the state to retrieve defendants, parolees, or convicts who attempt to escape jurisdiction.

Articles 51.04–51.07: Responding to Demands from Other States

When Texas is the asylum state (where the accused is located), Articles 51.04–51.07 empower the Governor to respond to extradition demands from a “demanding state.”
The Governor may issue a Governor’s Warrant once the legal requisites are met. These include a certified copy of the charging document or conviction, and a showing that the person was present in the demanding state at the time of the crime.

Articles 51.08–51.10: Arrest Without a Requisition

These sections authorize pre-requisition arrests. If a law enforcement officer believes someone is a fugitive from justice—even without a formal extradition request—they may arrest the individual upon proper judicial approval.
The goal is to detain the fugitive temporarily while awaiting formal extradition documents.

Article 51.11: Habeas Corpus and Contesting Extradition

This is the key safeguard for the accused. Under this provision, any individual arrested for extradition has the right to petition for habeas corpus to contest their detention.
The individual may challenge only three issues:
1. Identity – whether they are the person sought.
2. Validity of documents – whether the demanding state has supplied proper paperwork.
3. Presence in the demanding state at the time of the alleged crime.

Articles 51.12–51.13: Incorporating the UCEA

These provisions adopt the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, which standardizes extradition law across many states. Article 51.13 is the most detailed and widely cited section.
It includes timelines, waiver procedures, definitions, and duties of the Governor and courts.

II. Constitutional and Federal Backdrop

Extradition is rooted in the U.S. Constitution, specifically Article IV, Section 2, Clause 2 (the Extradition Clause), which requires states to deliver fugitives to the state from which they fled. This constitutional mandate was reinforced in 18 U.S.C. § 3182, the federal statute that parallels the Texas Code.

The most important case interpreting these provisions is Michigan v. Doran, 439 U.S. 282 (1978). The U.S. Supreme Court held that once the executive of the demanding state issues a proper extradition demand, the asylum state (e.g., Texas) must honor it—so long as four conditions are met:

A valid criminal charge exists in the demanding state.
The person was present in the demanding state at the time of the offense.
The person fleeing is the one charged.
Supporting documents are in order.

Once these are met, extradition is not discretionary. Courts cannot evaluate guilt or innocence at this stage.

III. Texas Case Law on Extradition

Texas courts have consistently upheld the principles laid out in Doran, while also shaping state-specific extradition jurisprudence.

Ex parte Potter, 21 S.W.3d 290 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000)

In Potter, the court reaffirmed that presence in the demanding state is a core element. If the accused can provide conclusive proof that they were not present in the demanding state at the time of the crime, extradition may be barred. However, the burden of proof rests heavily on the defendant.

Ex parte Friedman, 699 S.W.2d 31 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1985)

This case emphasized that the scope of habeas review is narrow. Courts cannot assess the merits of the underlying charges—only procedural and identity-based questions.

Ex parte Hoover, 215 S.W.3d 705 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007)

Here, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ruled that minor technical errors in documentation (such as an incorrect date) do not necessarily invalidate an extradition demand, so long as the essential requirements are met.

IV. Waiver of Extradition and Speedy Procedure

Article 51.13, Section 25, allows an individual to waive extradition. This typically occurs when someone agrees to return voluntarily to the demanding state. Waiver can be formalized before a judge and speeds up the process, avoiding prolonged detention.

Under Section 15, if a person is not extradited within 90 days, the court must release them unless the delay is justified. This protects against indefinite incarceration during the extradition process.

V. Practical Considerations for Defense Attorneys

Defense counsel representing individuals facing extradition in Texas should:

Request a habeas hearing quickly to preserve procedural rights.
Scrutinize documentation from the demanding state.
Investigate presence and identity—these are the only valid defenses.
Consider whether a waiver of extradition may be in the client’s best interest.
Ensure compliance with the 90-day rule under Article 51.13, Sec. 15.

While courts rarely block extradition, a thorough review of the documents and a strategic use of habeas corpus can occasionally result in delays or dismissals when the paperwork is deficient.

Conclusion

Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Articles 51.01 through 51.13 are central to the state’s extradition process. Rooted in constitutional mandates and harmonized through the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, these provisions ensure that justice is not thwarted by geography. At the same time, they provide due process protections for the accused through mechanisms like habeas corpus and procedural safeguards.

For practitioners, understanding this statutory framework and the relevant case law is essential to navigating the complex intersection of interstate law enforcement and individual rights.