UNITED STATES v. ADAMS (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.2021-07-01No. No. 20-40091

Summary · law.co

Holding. The motion for leave to withdraw is granted, counsel is excused from further responsibilities, and the appeal is dismissed.

Deandre Marker Adams's appointed appellate counsel sought permission to withdraw and filed a brief following the Anders procedure, which permits counsel to withdraw when an appeal lacks merit. Adams responded to the motion and requested that substitute counsel be appointed instead. The court denied Adams's request for new counsel, finding that Wagner did not support that outcome. Regarding Adams's claim that his trial lawyer provided inadequate representation, the court determined the appellate record was insufficient to evaluate the claim on appeal and therefore declined to address it, preserving the issue for later collateral review proceedings.

After reviewing both counsel's brief and Adams's response, the court agreed with counsel's conclusion that no nonfrivolous issues remained for appellate consideration. Accordingly, the court granted counsel's motion to withdraw, released counsel from further involvement in the case, and dismissed the appeal.

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

Key issues

Whether appointed appellate counsel could withdraw under the Anders procedure
Whether substitute counsel should be appointed
Whether the record supported review of ineffective assistance of trial counsel claims
Whether any nonfrivolous issues existed for appellate review

Procedural posture

This is an appellate proceeding in which appointed counsel sought to withdraw based on the absence of nonfrivolous issues for review.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

The attorney appointed to represent Deandre Marker Adams has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Adams has filed a response and has moved for the appointment of substitute counsel. That motion is DENIED. See United States v. Wagner, 158 F.3d 901, 902-03 (5th Cir. 1998). To the extent Adams alleges his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance, the record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of this claim; we therefore decline to consider the claim without prejudice to collateral review. See United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014).

We have reviewed counsels brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Adamss response. We concur with counsels assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE

Per Curiam:*

FN* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.