Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Cheri Ann Palmer was prosecuted in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Case No. 2:24-CR-120-1) and subsequently appealed her case to the Fifth Circuit. The Federal Public Defender was appointed to represent her on appeal.
After reviewing the record, appointed counsel concluded there were no nonfrivolous grounds for appeal. Counsel filed a motion to withdraw along with a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and the Fifth Circuit’s implementing procedural framework set out in United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Palmer did not file a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief.
The Court’s Holding
A per curiam panel of Judges Richman, Southwick, and Willett independently reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record. The court agreed with appointed counsel’s assessment that the appeal presented no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review.
Accordingly, the court granted counsel’s motion to withdraw, excused counsel from further responsibilities in the matter, and dismissed the appeal pursuant to Fifth Circuit Rule 42.2. The opinion was designated as unpublished under Fifth Circuit Rule 47.5.
Key Takeaways
- Under the Anders procedure, appointed counsel who finds an appeal wholly frivolous may seek leave to withdraw by filing a brief identifying anything in the record that might arguably support an appeal.
- The Fifth Circuit independently examines the record when an Anders brief is filed and will dismiss the appeal if it concurs that no nonfrivolous issue exists.
- A defendant’s failure to file a pro se response to an Anders brief does not prevent the court from proceeding to dismiss; the court conducts its own review regardless.
Why It Matters
This case is a routine application of the Anders framework, which balances the Sixth Amendment right to counsel against the judicial system’s interest in not pursuing wholly meritless appeals at public expense. It illustrates the procedural mechanism by which appointed counsel can ethically withdraw when no colorable appellate argument exists, while still ensuring the defendant’s interests receive independent judicial scrutiny.
For practitioners, the decision reinforces that the Fifth Circuit will conduct its own record review before granting an Anders withdrawal — counsel cannot simply assert frivolousness and walk away without the court’s independent concurrence.