Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Christian Trevon Jimison appealed from a criminal case in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. His appointed appellate attorney moved for leave to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California and United States v. Flores, representing that the appeal presented no nonfrivolous issue for review.
Jimison responded by moving for appointment of counsel to explore unspecified “viable issues.” The case proceeded on the Fifth Circuit’s summary calendar.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record identified in it. The court agreed with 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, and dismissed the appeal under Fifth Circuit Rule 42.2. It separately denied Jimison’s motion for appointment of counsel as untimely.
Key Takeaways
- An appellate court conducting an Anders review examines counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record to determine whether any nonfrivolous appellate issue exists.
- The Fifth Circuit found no nonfrivolous issue, permitted appointed counsel to withdraw, and dismissed Jimison’s appeal.
- The court denied Jimison’s motion for appointment of counsel solely as untimely.
Why It Matters
The unpublished decision illustrates the Fifth Circuit’s procedure when appointed counsel concludes that a criminal appeal lacks a nonfrivolous issue and seeks to withdraw under Anders. Once its review confirmed counsel’s assessment, the court dismissed the appeal rather than reaching any merits issue.
The opinion also shows that the timing of a request for replacement appellate counsel can be dispositive: Jimison’s request was denied as untimely, without the court holding that the request failed because it referred only to unspecified potential issues.