Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Santiago Daniel Baltazar appealed from a criminal case in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The Fifth Circuit’s unpublished per curiam opinion does not describe his conviction, sentence, or potential appellate claims.
Baltazar’s appointed attorney moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California and United States v. Flores, representing that the appeal presented no nonfrivolous issue. Baltazar did not file a response.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit reviewed counsel’s Anders brief and the relevant portions of the record identified in it. The panel agreed with counsel that the appeal presented no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review.
The court granted counsel’s motion to withdraw, excused counsel from further responsibilities in the case, and dismissed the appeal under Fifth Circuit Rule 42.2.
Key Takeaways
- An appointed lawyer seeking to withdraw under Anders must submit a brief addressing whether the record contains any nonfrivolous appellate issue.
- The Fifth Circuit independently reviewed the brief and relevant record portions before agreeing that no nonfrivolous issue existed.
- The court permitted counsel to withdraw and dismissed Baltazar’s appeal as frivolous under Fifth Circuit Rule 42.2.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the Fifth Circuit’s procedure when appointed appellate counsel concludes that a criminal appeal lacks a nonfrivolous issue. Counsel’s assessment does not itself end the appeal; the court conducts its own review before allowing withdrawal and dismissing the case.
Because the unpublished opinion provides no details about Baltazar’s conviction, sentence, or possible claims, its significance is primarily procedural rather than a substantive ruling on criminal law.