NO. 07-08 -000 1-CR IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL A MA Y20, 2008

_________

_________

_________

___ MICHAEL ANT HONY

W HIT ESE LL, APPE LLA NT V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 24 2 ND DI ST RI CT COU RT OF HA L E CO UNT Y; NO . B1 7345- 0709; HO NO RA BLE E D SELF , J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

____ Before CAMPBE LL a nd HANCOCK an d PIRT LE, JJ. ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON App ellant , Michael Ant hon y W hitese ll, appe als the den ial of his applicat ion for w rit of h ab ea s c or pu s c ha l l en g i ng h i s a r res t pu rs ua ntt o a g ov er no r ’ s war ran t. W e affi r m. App ellant ’s attorne y

has f iled an Ande rs brief a nd a mo tion to w ithdra w . S ee An ders v . C ali forni a, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct . 1396, 18 L.Ed. 2d 493 (1 967)
. In s uppor t of hi s mot ion to w it hdraw , c ounse l cer ti fies that he has di li g entl y rev iewed th e reco rd and, i n hi s o pin ion , the record reflect s n o rev ersi ble er ro r upon w hic h an appeal ca n be arg uabl y predi cat ed. Id. at 74 4 -4 5 . In c ompli ance w it h H ig h v . St ate, 573 S. W .2d 8 07, 8 13 ( Tex .C ri m.App.2

1978) , couns el has cand idl y disc uss ed w hy , under the cont ro ll ing authori ti es, there i s n o er ro r in the t ri al cour

t’ s j udg ment. Addi ti onal ly , c ounse l has cer ti fied th at he has prov ide d appel lan t a copy

of the A nders b ri ef and moti on to w ith d ra w and appropr iat ely

adv is ed appel lan t of

his ri g ht t o fil e a pro se respon se in thi s matter . Stafford v . St ate, 813 S. W .2d 503, 510 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1991)
. The cour t has al so adv is ed appe ll ant o f his r ig ht t o fil e a pro se respon se. Ap pel lan t has i n fact filed a respon se and furt her f ile d a d o cu m e nt he denomi nates as an a ppl ic ati on for w ri t of habeas co rp us. W e hav e made a n i ndependen t rev iew of the e nti re record to de termine w hether there are any

arg uabl e g ro unds w hic h mi g ht s uppor t an appeal . See Penson v . O hio , 488 U. S. 7 5, 10 9 S. Ct . 346 , 102 L.E d.2d 300 ( 198 8) ; Bl edsoe v . St ate, 178 S. W .3d 8 24 (Tex .C ri m.App. 2005)
. W e hav e found no suc h g ro unds. Add itiona lly , w e ha v e revi ewed app ellant ’s pr o s e re spons e and other doc uments appel lan t has fil ed i n c onnecti on w it h thi s c ase. Al l of the purp orted arg uabl e grounds put forth by appe llant w ould have this court go behin d the g overnor’s w arrant. The record before u s c ontai ns no i rreg ula ri ti es and, as suc h, i s p ri ma facie proof t o the all eg ati ons cont ain ed th erein . Mi chi g an v . D oran, 4 39 U .S. 282, 289, 99 S. Ct . 530 , 58 L.Ed .2d 521 (1 978)
. There w as no c ontes t atthe w ri t hea ri ng aboutthe ide nti ty of appel lan t as the person named i n the g ov er nor ’s w ar ra nt. Appel lan t all eg es that he w as not t imel y broug ht before the tri al cour

t, all eg ing that more than 90 day s transpi re d before the heari ng on the w ri t w as conducted. See T EX . C OD E C R IM . P ROC . A NN . art. 51 .07 (Vernon 200 6). How ever, appel lan t fail ed to take into cons ide ra ti on the prov is ion thatal lows a person, onc e rele ased on b ond und er provisi ons o f article 51.0 7, to be sub sequen tly arrested upo n the issuance3

of a g ov er nor ’s w ar ra nt. See T EX . C OD E C R IM . P ROC . A NN . art. 51.08 (V er non 200 6)
. The re cord aff ir mati v ely

reflect s t hat the abov e proc edure w as followed. Acc ordin g ly , w e ag re e w ith cou nsel th at th e ap pea l is f riv olou s. Therefore, w e g ra nt c ounse l’ s mot ion to w it hdraw a n d a f f irm the order

of the t ri al cour t.
Mackey K. Hancock Justice

Do not p ubl is h.