What happened
The Sixth Circuit said appointed counsel for Joseph Harris had not filed an adequate Anders brief and deferred ruling on counsel’s request to withdraw from Harris’ appeal of his felon-in-possession conviction and 52-month sentence.
The panel said the filing did not analyze potential appellate issues, the appeal waiver, the validity of the guilty plea or possible claims outside the waiver’s scope, even though counsel’s brief argued the district court erred by applying a sentencing enhancement and sought vacatur and remand. The court said the one-sentence explanation for withdrawal, plus a reference to the appeal waiver, was not enough: “That does not suffice.”
Harris pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm and ammunition as a felon under an agreement accepted by the district court. The agreement included an appeal waiver, but Harris still appealed his conviction and sentence, and counsel moved to withdraw under Anders v. California on the ground that there were no arguable issues.
The Sixth Circuit said Anders requires more than a conclusory assertion that an appeal is frivolous. The court reasoned that independent judicial review could not replace an adequate Anders filing because the procedure protects a defendant’s constitutional right to appellate counsel.
For cases involving a guilty plea and appeal waiver, the court said defense counsel should address whether the plea and waiver were knowing and voluntary and whether any nonfrivolous claims fall outside the waiver or would not be barred by it. The panel said counsel’s brief did none of that.
The court ordered counsel to file a supplemental brief within 30 days addressing those issues and any other issues counsel deems relevant. It deferred ruling on the withdrawal motion until the supplemental brief is received.