NUMBER 13-03-00692-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
EX PARTE GUADALUPE CHAVEZ
On appeal from the 343rd District Court of Live Oak County, Texas.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Hinojosa and Castillo
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Hinojosa
Appellant, Guadalupe Chavez, brings this appeal following the trial court’s denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging extradition. We affirm.
A. Anders Brief
Appellant’s attorney has filed a brief with this Court asserting there is no basis for appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). According to the brief, counsel has reviewed the clerk’s record and reporter’s record and has concluded that this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. See id. The brief meets the requirements of Anders as it presents a professional evaluation showing why there are no arguable grounds for advancing an appeal. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978), counsel has carefully discussed why, under the controlling authorities, there are no errors in the trial court’s order denying habeas corpus relief. In the brief, appellant’s counsel states that he has informed appellant of his right to review the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. No such brief has been filed.
B. Examination of Proceedings
Upon receiving a “frivolous appeal” brief, the appellate courts must conduct “a full examination of all the proceedings to decide whether the case is wholly frivolous.” Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988); see Garza v. State, 126 S.W.3d 312, 313 (Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 2004, no pet.).
The record shows that a Texas governor’s warrant was issued on October 3, 2003, authorizing appellant’s arrest and return to the State of Illinois. On October 15, 2003, appellant filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, claiming he was illegally confined in excess of the period allowed by the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 51.13, §§ 15,17 (Vernon Supp. 2004). The trial court heard the petition on October 20, 2003, and denied appellant’s request for relief.
A court considering whether to grant or deny a petitioner's writ of habeas corpus challenging extradition can only decide whether: (1) the extradition documents on their face are in order; (2) the petitioner has been charged with a crime in the demanding state; (3) the petitioner is the person named in the request for extradition; and (4) the petitioner is a fugitive. Michigan v. Doran, 439 U.S. 282, 289 (1978); State ex rel. Holmes v. Klevenhagen, 819 S.W.2d 539, 543 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). At the hearing, appellant did not dispute these four requirements. In fact, appellant stipulated that the State of Texas had met all four requirements.
Appellant claimed only that he was illegally confined in excess of the period allowed by the code of criminal procedure. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 51.13, §§ 15,17 (Vernon Supp. 2004). However, the issuance of a valid governor’s warrant renders moot any complaint arising from confinement under a fugitive warrant, including detention in excess of the statutory period. Ex parte Worden, 502 S.W.2d 803, 804-05 (Tex. Crim. App. 1973); Echols v. State, 810 S.W.2d 430, 431 (Tex. App.–Houston [14th Dist.] 1991, no pet.). Thus, the trial court did not err in denying appellant’s request for habeas corpus relief.
We have carefully reviewed the appellate record and counsel’s brief. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support this appeal. We agree with appellant’s counsel that this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit.
We affirm the trial court’s order denying appellant’s petition for writ of habeas corpus.
C. Anders Counsel
An appellate court may grant counsel’s motion to withdraw filed in connection with an Anders brief. Moore v. State, 466 S.W.2d 289, 291 n.1 (Tex. Crim. App. 1971); see Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 511 (noting that Anders brief should be filed with request for withdrawal from case). We note that counsel has not filed a motion to withdraw in this case. If counsel wishes to file a motion to withdraw, he must file the motion no later than fifteen days from the date of this opinion.
We order counsel to advise appellant promptly of the disposition of this case and the availability of discretionary review. See Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (per curiam).
FEDERICO G. HINOJOSA
Justice
Do not publish. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed
this the 12th day of August, 2004.