Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Anayeli Lopez Tinoco was a criminal defendant convicted in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas (Case No. 3:24-CR-330-1). Her court-appointed appellate counsel, after reviewing the record, concluded that the appeal presented no nonfrivolous issues for review.
Pursuant to the procedure established in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and the Fifth Circuit’s own framework under United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011), counsel moved for leave to withdraw and filed an Anders brief advising the court of the lack of any meritorious appellate arguments. Lopez Tinoco filed a pro se response to counsel’s brief.
The Court’s Holding
A per curiam panel of Judges Stewart, Graves, and Oldham reviewed both appointed counsel’s Anders brief and Lopez Tinoco’s pro se response, along with the relevant portions of the record. The court agreed with counsel’s assessment that the appeal raised no nonfrivolous issue warranting appellate review.
The court granted counsel’s motion to withdraw, excused counsel from any further responsibilities in the matter, and dismissed the appeal pursuant to Fifth Circuit Rule 42.2. The opinion was designated as unpublished.
Key Takeaways
- When appointed counsel files an Anders brief certifying an appeal is wholly frivolous, the appellate court independently reviews the record and, if it concurs, may grant withdrawal and dismiss the appeal.
- A defendant’s pro se response to an Anders brief does not automatically create a nonfrivolous issue; the court reviews it alongside the record and counsel’s brief before making its determination.
- Dismissal under Fifth Circuit Rule 42.2 following an Anders proceeding forecloses the appeal without reaching the merits.
Why It Matters
This case illustrates the routine operation of the Anders procedure, which balances a criminal defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel against the judicial system’s interest in not processing wholly meritless appeals. It serves as a reminder that appointed counsel has an ethical obligation to advocate only for nonfrivolous positions, and that the court — not just counsel — must independently assess the record before permitting withdrawal.
While the opinion is unpublished and nonprecedential, it reflects the Fifth Circuit’s consistent application of its Anders framework and the efficiency mechanism that Rule 42.2 provides for disposing of frivolous criminal appeals.