Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Jairo Alberto Builes-Molina was a defendant in a criminal case originating in the Southern District of Texas (USDC No. 4:19-CR-36-9). Following conviction or sentencing, appointed counsel pursued a direct appeal on his behalf to the Fifth Circuit.
Appellate counsel concluded the appeal presented no nonfrivolous issues and moved for leave to withdraw, filing a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Builes-Molina filed pro se responses to the Anders brief.
The Court’s Holding
A per curiam panel of Judges Wiener, Willett, and Wilson reviewed counsel’s brief, the relevant portions of the record, and Builes-Molina’s pro se responses. The court agreed with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presented no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review, and accordingly granted the motion to withdraw and dismissed the appeal under Fifth Circuit Rule 42.2.
Builes-Molina also raised claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The court declined to consider those claims on direct appeal, finding the record insufficiently developed to permit fair evaluation, and dismissed them without prejudice to pursuit through collateral review. See United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014).
Key Takeaways
- The Fifth Circuit granted appointed counsel’s Anders motion to withdraw after independently confirming the appeal raised no nonfrivolous issues.
- Ineffective assistance of counsel claims raised on direct appeal were declined without prejudice, preserving Builes-Molina’s ability to raise them in a future § 2255 or other collateral proceeding where the record can be more fully developed.
- The appeal was dismissed pursuant to Fifth Circuit Rule 42.2, the standard procedural vehicle for dismissal following a meritless Anders review.
Why It Matters
This unpublished decision is a routine application of the Anders framework, which balances the constitutional right to appellate counsel against judicial resources by allowing withdrawal when counsel conscientiously determines an appeal is wholly frivolous. The court’s handling of the ineffective assistance claims reinforces the well-established Fifth Circuit rule that such claims are nearly always better suited to collateral attack, where an evidentiary record can be developed outside the constraints of the direct appeal record.