Background
John Melgar appealed from proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. His appointed appellate counsel moved for leave to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California and United States v. Flores, indicating that counsel found no nonfrivolous basis for the appeal.
Melgar did not file a response. The Fifth Circuit reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record identified in it.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit held that the appeal’s untimeliness was dispositive because the government declined to waive it. The court relied on United States v. Pesina-Rodriguez, 825 F.3d 787, 788 (5th Cir. 2016).
The court granted appointed counsel’s motion to withdraw, excused counsel from further responsibilities in the case, and dismissed the appeal under Fifth Circuit Rule 42.2.
Key Takeaways
- An untimely criminal appeal is subject to dismissal when the government declines to waive the timing defect.
- The court treated timeliness as dispositive without reaching potential appellate issues discussed in the Anders brief.
- Appointed counsel was permitted to withdraw and was discharged from further responsibilities.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that the deadline for filing a criminal appeal can determine the case before the appellate court reaches the merits. When the government invokes rather than waives untimeliness, an Anders review does not prevent dismissal on that procedural ground.