UNITED STATES v. DOBROVOLSKY (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.2021-06-24No. No. 20-40680

Summary · law.co

Holding. The motion for counsel to withdraw was granted, the appeal was dismissed, and the motion for substitute counsel was denied.

Dobrovolsky's appointed appellate counsel filed a motion to withdraw under Anders v. California, submitting a brief arguing the appeal lacks merit. Dobrovolsky responded pro se and requested substitute counsel. The court examined counsel's brief, the record, and Dobrovolsky's response, finding no nonfrivolous issues suitable for appellate review. The court declined to address Dobrovolsky's ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim because the record was underdeveloped, preserving that claim for potential collateral review.

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

Key issues

Whether appellate counsel may withdraw under Anders v. California when no nonfrivolous issues exist
Whether the record supports appellate review of ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims
Preservation of collateral review rights

Procedural posture

Appellate counsel sought to withdraw by filing an Anders brief arguing the appeal lacked merit, prompting Dobrovolsky's pro se response and request for replacement counsel.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

The attorney appointed to represent Bridget Dobrovolsky has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief per 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). Dobrovolsky has filed a pro se response and motion for appointment of substitute counsel. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Dobrovolskys claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; 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, relevant portions of the record, and Dobrovolskys 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. The motion for appointment of substitute counsel is DENIED. See United States v. Wagner, 158 F.3d 901, 902−03 (5th Cir. 1998).

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.