UNITED STATES v. THOMAS (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.2021-06-29No. No. 20-50571

Summary · law.co

Holding. The motion for withdrawal of counsel is granted and the appeal is dismissed because no nonfrivolous issue exists for appellate review.

Sonny Allen Thomas's appointed attorney filed a motion to withdraw from the appeal, submitting a brief under the procedure established in Anders v. California. The brief indicated that the appeal lacked any nonfrivolous issues warranting appellate review. After examining the attorney's submission, Thomas's response, and the relevant record, the court agreed that no viable appellate claims remained to be decided. The court additionally rejected Thomas's separate request to delay the resolution of his appeal.

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

Key issues

Adequacy of counsel's Anders brief identifying frivolous claims
Existence of nonfrivolous appellate issues
Timing of appeal disposition

Procedural posture

This is an appeal in which appointed counsel sought to withdraw by filing an Anders brief demonstrating the absence of merit in the case.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

The attorney appointed to represent Sonny Allen Thomas 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). Thomas has filed a response. We have reviewed counsels brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Thomass response. We concur with counsels assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsels 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. Thomass pro se motion to postpone disposition of his appeal is DENIED.

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FN* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.