Background
Antoinette Monique Hopkins appealed from a criminal case in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The Fifth Circuit considered the matter on its summary calendar.
Hopkins’s appointed attorney moved for leave to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California and United States v. Flores, representing that the appeal presented no nonfrivolous grounds for review. Hopkins did not file a response.
The Court’s Holding
After reviewing counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record identified in it, the Fifth Circuit agreed with counsel that the appeal presented no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review.
The court granted counsel’s motion to withdraw, excused counsel from further responsibility in the case, and dismissed the appeal under Fifth Circuit Rule 42.2.
Key Takeaways
- An appointed attorney may seek withdrawal by filing an Anders brief when counsel concludes that a criminal appeal has no nonfrivolous issue.
- The Fifth Circuit independently reviewed counsel’s submission and the relevant portions of the record before agreeing that the appeal was frivolous.
- The court dismissed the appeal and released appointed counsel from further responsibilities.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the Fifth Circuit’s procedure for resolving an Anders appeal: the court reviews counsel’s assessment and relevant record materials, permits withdrawal when no nonfrivolous issue exists, and may dismiss the appeal as frivolous.
The unpublished per curiam opinion did not address the merits of Hopkins’s conviction or sentence beyond determining that no nonfrivolous appellate issue was presented.