Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Franklin Joseph Perkins appealed a conviction from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (USDC No. 3:23-CR-26-1). Appointed counsel for Perkins sought to withdraw from the representation and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011), which permits appellate counsel to withdraw when they conclude an appeal lacks merit.
In accordance with established Fifth Circuit procedure, counsel’s brief identified counsel’s assessment that the appeal presented no issues worthy of appellate review. Perkins did not file a response to counsel’s motion.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit panel, consisting of Judges Smith, Southwick, and Oldham, reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the appellate record. The court concurred with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presented no nonfrivolous issues for appellate review.
Accordingly, the court granted counsel’s motion to withdraw, excused counsel from further responsibilities in the case, and dismissed the appeal. The decision was rendered on the summary calendar and was not designated for publication.
Key Takeaways
- Under Anders v. California, appointed appellate counsel may move to withdraw by filing a brief arguing the appeal lacks merit, subject to appellate review.
- Appellate courts must independently review the record and counsel’s Anders brief to determine whether nonfrivolous issues exist before dismissing an appeal.
- When an appellate court agrees that no nonfrivolous issues are present, it may grant counsel’s withdrawal motion and dismiss the appeal.
Why It Matters
This case illustrates the Fifth Circuit’s application of Anders procedures, which balance two competing concerns in appellate criminal law: ensuring defendants have meaningful access to appellate review while preventing the wasteful pursuit of manifestly frivolous appeals. The Anders framework requires that even when counsel believes an appeal is hopeless, courts conduct independent review to verify that assessment before dismissing the case.
For criminal practitioners, this decision underscores that Anders motions are not merely perfunctory—appellate courts actively scrutinize counsel’s reasoning and the trial record. The procedure protects appellants’ constitutional right to counsel while allowing courts to manage dockets efficiently by eliminating truly frivolous claims from review.