EX PARTE: Michael Kruppenbacher v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: March 27, 2023
• Docket: 05-22-00904-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

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–