Keith Haynie v. State ( 2006 )

Opinion filed February 23, 2006

Opinion filed February 23, 2006

                                                                        In The

    Eleventh Court of Appeals

                                                                   __________

                                                          No. 11-05-00333-CR

                                                    __________

                                         KEITH HAYNIE, Appellant

                                                             V.

                                        STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                                         On Appeal from the 244th  District Court

                                                           Ector County, Texas

                                                 Trial Court Cause No. W3007-C

                                                                   O P I N I O N

This is an appeal pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 31.  The trial court denied Keith Haynie=s application for writ of habeas corpus seeking a bail bond reduction and ordered that Haynie be extradited to the State of Washington.  We affirm.

Appellant=s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw.  The motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and states that he has concluded that the appeal is frivolous.  Counsel has provided appellant with a copy of the brief and advised appellant of his right to review the record and file a response to counsel=s brief.  A response has not been filed.  Court-appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969); Eaden v. State, 161 S.W.3d 173 (Tex. App.CEastland 2005, no pet=n).

Following the procedures outlined in Anders, we have independently reviewed the record; and we agree that the appeal is without merit.  We note that the trial court reduced appellant=s bail bond from $15,000 to $5,000 and that appellant did not object to the extradition documents.  Appellant admitted that the extradition papers from the State of Washington were in order, that he was the person charged in the papers with a felony offense, and that he was a fugitive from the State of Washington.  Appellant only sought to challenge the trial court=s ruling on his request to be released on a personal recognizance bond.  The record supports the trial court=s findings that appellant=s bail bond reduction claims became moot upon service of the Governor=s Warrant from the State of Washington.

The motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

February 23, 2006

Do not publish.  See Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., and

McCall, J., and Strange, J.