Court Opinion

ID: 9382911
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-29 06:09:04.280728+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:42.523795
License: Public Domain

AFFIRMED and Opinion Filed March 27, 2023

                                       SIn The
                             Court of Appeals
                      Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                No. 05-22-00904-CR

                    Ex Parte MICHAEL KRUPPENBACHER

                On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court
                             Dallas County, Texas
                    Trial Court Cause No. WX22-92138-U

                        MEMORANDUM OPINION
                 Before Justices Reichek, Goldstein, and Kennedy
                            Opinion by Justice Reichek
      Appellant Michael Kruppenbacher filed an application for writ of habeas

corpus seeking to avoid extradition to the state of Arizona. Following a hearing, a

magistrate submitted proposed findings and recommended the writ be denied. The

findings made by the magistrate were: (1) the Governor’s Warrant is regular on its

face; (2) appellant is charged with crimes in the state of Arizona; (3) appellant is the

person named in the request for extradition; and (4) appellant is a fugitive from

justice. The trial court adopted the magistrate’s findings and signed an order denying

appellant’s application for writ of habeas corpus. Appellant brought this appeal

challenging the trial court’s order.
      Appellant’s attorney filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in which she

concludes this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the

requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). It presents a professional

evaluation of the record showing why there are no arguable grounds to advance. See

High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811(Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978).

      Appellant was informed of his counsel’s motion to withdraw and provided

with her brief stating the appeal was frivolous. Appellant was also provided with a

copy of the record and informed of his right to file a pro se response. Appellant filed

a response on February 6, 2023 stating he was severely ill and would need medically

appropriate transportation to Arizona.

      A governor’s grant of extradition is prima facie evidence that constitutional

and statutory requirements have been met. Michigan v. Doran, 439 U.S. 282, 289

(1978). Our review of a denial of habeas corpus relief in an extradition proceeding

is limited to the following issues: (1) whether the extradition documents are in order

on their face; (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. Id. Appellant’s brief does

not address any issue upon which reversal of the order might be granted.

       After an independent examination of the record to determine whether there is

any arguable ground that may be raised, we agree this appeal is frivolous and without

merit. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We grant

                                         –2–
counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s order denying appellant’s

application for writ of habeas corpus.

                                           /Amanda L. Reichek/
                                           AMANDA L. REICHEK
                                           JUSTICE

Do Not Publish
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)

220904F.U05

                                         –3–
                                   S
                            Court of Appeals
                     Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                  JUDGMENT

EX PARTE MICHAEL                              On Appeal from the 291st Judicial
KRUPPENBACHER                                 District Court, Dallas County, Texas
                                              Trial Court Cause No. WX22-92138-
No. 05-22-00904-CR                            U.
                                              Opinion delivered by Justice
                                              Reichek. Justices Goldstein and
                                              Kennedy participating.

    Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the order of the trial court is
AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered March 27, 2023

                                        –4–