EX PARTE: Michael Kruppenbacher
This text of EX PARTE: Michael Kruppenbacher (EX PARTE: Michael Kruppenbacher) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Order entered October 28, 2022
In 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
ORDER
Before the Court is appellant’s October 24, 2022 motion for an extension of
time to file his brief. We GRANT the motion and ORDER appellant’s brief filed
by November 8, 2022. The State’s brief shall be due by November 29, 2022.
After reviewing the clerk’s record filed on October 18, 2022, the Court
questions its jurisdiction over the appeal. In an appeal from a habeas matter, the
Court’s jurisdiction is triggered by the filing of a notice of appeal within thirty
days after the trial court enters an appealable order. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a)(1).
The clerk’s record reflects the district court referred appellant’s habeas
application to a magistrate for hearing. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 54.306(a)(8); see also Ex parte Edwards, No. 05-03-00556-CR, 2003 WL 21962575, at *3 (Tex.
App.—Dallas Aug. 18, 2003, no pet.) (not designated for publication) (holding that
under proper referral from trial court, Dallas County magistrates may hear habeas
applications challenging extraditions). After hearing the matter, the magistrate
denied relief and prepared proposed findings and recommendations. The record
does not show the magistrate’s proposed findings and recommendations were
considered or adopted by the district court. There is no other written order in the
record that could serve as the basis for an appeal. Thus, the Court questions
whether a proposed set of findings and recommendations from the magistrate
constitutes an appealable order sufficient to invoke the Court’s jurisdiction.
Additionally, the record does not contain a certification of the right to
appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a); Cortez v. State, 420 S.W.3d 803, 807 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2013).
To expedite the resolution of this extradition appeal, the Court ORDERS the
parties to address the issue of the Court’s jurisdiction in their briefs.
We further ORDER the trial court to prepare a certification of the right to
appeal for this case and file it as a supplemental record within FOURTEEN
DAYS of the date of this order.
We DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to transmit a copy of this order to the
Honorable Stephanie Huff, Presiding Judge, 291st Judicial District Court; the
–2– Honorable Anthony Randall, Dallas County Magistrate Judge, Auxiliary Court No.
2; and to counsel for the parties.
/s/ AMANDA L. REICHEK JUSTICE
–3–
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
EX PARTE: Michael Kruppenbacher, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ex-parte-michael-kruppenbacher-texapp-2022.