United States v. Dexter — dismissed the appeal after finding no nonfrivolous issue

Case
United States of America v. Tracy Alan Dexter
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Judge
Jennifer Walker Elrod (George W. Bush, 2007); Leslie H. Southwick (George W. Bush, 2007); Irma Carrillo Ramirez (Joe Biden, 2023)
Date Decided
September 2, 2026
Docket No.
26-10041
Topics
Criminal Appeals; Anders Briefs; Withdrawal of Counsel; Frivolous Appeals
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

Tracy Alan Dexter appealed from a criminal case in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent him moved to withdraw and submitted a brief under Anders v. California and United States v. Flores, indicating that the appeal presented no nonfrivolous issue.

Dexter filed a response to counsel’s submission and separately moved for appointment of substitute counsel. The Fifth Circuit reviewed counsel’s brief, the relevant portions of the record identified in the brief, and Dexter’s response.

The Court’s Holding

The Fifth Circuit agreed with appointed counsel that the appeal presented no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. It therefore granted counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw, excused counsel from further responsibilities, and dismissed the appeal under Fifth Circuit Rule 42.2.

The court also denied Dexter’s motion for appointment of substitute counsel, citing United States v. Wagner. The disposition was issued per curiam and was not designated for publication.

Key Takeaways

  • The Fifth Circuit independently reviewed the Anders submission, the relevant record materials, and Dexter’s response.
  • The court found no nonfrivolous appellate issue and dismissed the appeal.
  • Appointed counsel was permitted to withdraw, and Dexter was not entitled to substitute counsel.

Why It Matters

The decision illustrates the Fifth Circuit’s handling of an Anders appeal: after appointed counsel identifies no nonfrivolous ground for review, the court examines the relevant materials before deciding whether withdrawal and dismissal are warranted.

It also confirms that a defendant does not obtain substitute appointed counsel merely because existing counsel seeks withdrawal after concluding that the appeal lacks a nonfrivolous issue.

✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top