Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Tadeo Espinoza-Estrada appealed from a criminal judgment entered by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The record showed that he was convicted and sentenced under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).
His appointed Federal Public Defender moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California and United States v. Flores, representing that the appeal presented no nonfrivolous issue. Espinoza-Estrada did not file a response.
The Court’s Holding
After reviewing counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record identified in it, the Fifth Circuit agreed that the appeal presented no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. The court granted counsel’s motion to withdraw, excused counsel from further responsibilities, and dismissed the appeal under Fifth Circuit Rule 42.2.
The court nevertheless identified a clerical error in the written judgment. Although Espinoza-Estrada was convicted and sentenced under § 1326(a) only, the judgment cited “8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a) and (b)(1)/(2).” The court therefore remanded for the limited purpose of correcting the judgment under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.
Key Takeaways
- An appellate court may dismiss an appeal after an Anders review confirms that no nonfrivolous appellate issue exists.
- A mistaken statutory citation in a written criminal judgment may be corrected as a clerical error under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.
- The limited remand did not disturb Espinoza-Estrada’s conviction or sentence; it authorized only correction of the written judgment.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates that an Anders dismissal does not prevent an appellate court from directing correction of an error it discovers in the judgment. Criminal practitioners should compare the judgment’s statutory citations with the actual offense of conviction because even a citation that does not support a substantive appellate claim may warrant a limited Rule 36 remand.