UNITED STATES v. JONES (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-09-16No. No. 21-30090

Summary · law.co

Holding. The judgment revoking supervised release and imposing the custodial sentence and term of supervised release was affirmed.

Dawan Deonte Jones challenged a district court decision that revoked his supervised release and imposed a 6-month prison sentence followed by 51 months of supervised release. Following the procedure outlined in Anders v. California, Jones's counsel filed a brief indicating no viable grounds for appeal existed and moved to withdraw from representation. Jones submitted his own supplemental brief raising additional arguments.

The appellate court independently reviewed the entire record to determine whether any grounds for relief were available. Finding none, the court granted counsel's motion to withdraw and affirmed the district court's judgment. Jones's request to terminate his supervised release was denied but left open for him to raise again in the district court at a later date if circumstances warrant.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether the revocation of supervised release was supported by sufficient grounds
Whether counsel could withdraw under Anders procedures
Whether supervised release could be terminated early

Procedural posture

Jones appealed the district court's revocation of his supervised release and imposition of sentence following submission of an Anders brief by appellate counsel and a pro se supplemental brief by Jones.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Dawan Deonte Jones appeals from the district courts judgment revoking supervised release and imposing a 6-month custodial sentence and 51-month term of supervised release. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Joness counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Jones has filed a pro se supplemental brief. No answering brief has been filed.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal.

Counsels motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

Joness pro se request to terminate his supervised release is denied without prejudice to renewal in the district court at the appropriate time. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1).

Within 7 days of this disposition, appellee must serve the disposition on appellant individually and provide the court with proof of service, including appellants mailing address.

AFFIRMED.