United States v. Leslie Edwards

Court Case Details
Court Case Opinion

777 F.2d 364

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Leslie EDWARDS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 85-1934.

United States Court of Appeals,
Seventh Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 24, 1985.
Decided Nov. 14, 1985.

Sheldon Nagelberg, Chicago, Ill., for defendant-appellant.

Scott F. Turow, Asst. U.S. Atty., Anton R. Valukas, U.S. Atty., Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before CUDAHY, ESCHBACH and POSNER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

1

Counsel for the defendant in this criminal appeal, which has not yet been briefed or argued, has submitted a document captioned "brief" which reads in its entirety as follows:

2

SHELDON NAGELBERG, appointed counsel for LESLIE EDWARDS, the Defendant-Appellant in the above numbered appeal, seeks permission of this Court to withdraw in accord with the principles enumerated in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). In accord with such SHELDON NAGELBERG certifies that

3

a. He has examined the entire transcript of the trial and sentencing hearing and cannot locate anything in the record that might arguably support an appeal;

4

b. He believes, after a conscientious examination of the record, that such an appeal is wholly frivolous, notwithstanding the existence of facts previously stated in SHELDON NAGELBERG'S Petition Not To Be Appointed Counsel For the Defendant-Appellant, and a Petition For Reconsideration.

5

The Anders decision cited in Mr. Nagelberg's "brief" allows an appointed counsel in a criminal appeal to seek permission to withdraw as counsel on the ground that an appeal would be in his opinion frivolous. See 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400. A lawyer, after all, has no duty, indeed no right, to pester a court with frivolous arguments, which is to say arguments that cannot conceivably persuade the court, so if he believes in good faith that there are no other arguments that he can make on his client's behalf he is honor-bound to so advise the court and seek leave to withdraw as counsel. The court can then decide whether to appoint another counsel or allow the appellant to proceed on his own.

6

In Anders, however, the Supreme Court disapproved the use of a "no merit" letter, see id. at 745, 87 S.Ct. at 1400, whereby the lawyer merely advises the court of his conclusion that the appeal is frivolous. Since, speaking realistically, a criminal defendant who has money will always be able to persuade some lawyer to prosecute an appeal for him, parity--or, again speaking realistically, an approximation to parity--between criminal defendants who do and those who do not have monetary means requires that the appointed counsel who wants to withdraw not leave his client wholly in the lurch, which is the practical consequence of the "no merit" letter. Instead he must file a brief that will advise the court of what points he might have raised and why he thinks they would have been frivolous. See id. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400. This will assist the court in evaluating the defendant's pro se appeal, and will thus put the indigent defendant in about as good a position as that of the affluent defendant who can get a lawyer to make frivolous arguments on his behalf. This is the famous "Anders brief." See discussions by Judge (now Justice) Stevens, writing for this court in Nickols v. Gagnon, 454 F.2d 467 (7th Cir.1971), and more recently by the Fifth and Eleventh Circuits in United States v. Johnson, 527 F.2d 1328 (5th Cir.1976) (per curiam), and United States v. Blackwell, 767 F.2d 1486 (11th Cir.1985) (per curiam).

7

Although styled a "brief" (as was also true in Johnson and Blackwell ), Mr. Nagelberg's one-pager does not comply with the requirements of Anders and the other cases we have cited; it is, in fact, a "no merit" letter by another name. His motion to withdraw as counsel is therefore denied and he is directed to file a brief that will comply with the requirements of the cited cases. The brief should (1) identify, with record references and case citations, any feature of the proceeding in the district court that a court or another lawyer might conceivably think worth citing to the appellate court as a possible ground of error; (2) sketch the argument for reversal that might be made with respect to each such potential ground of error; and (3) explain why he nevertheless believes that none of these arguments is nonfrivolous. It may of course be that in going through the exercise required by Anders Mr. Nagelberg will change his mind and decide that his client has a meritorious, or at least nonfrivolous, appeal after all.

8

MOTION DENIED, WITH DIRECTIONS.

Referenced Cases

Citing Cases

Cases Citing This Case (50 of 120)

  1. United States v. Charles K. Griffy and Emma Griffy
  2. United States v. Lester Gene Boutwell v. Morris Allen Pritchett
  3. United States v. Mozel Palmer
  4. United States v. Jesse C. Levine
  5. United States v. Shanta A. Howell and George T. Howell, III
  6. Juan R. Rodriguez v. United States
  7. United States v. Luis Manuel Huitron
  8. United States v. Alberta Billups
  9. United States v. Deotis Hill and Lance Hill
  10. United States v. Plato
  11. United States v. Rush, George S. III
  12. United States v. Israel Martinez-Ferreras
  13. United States v. Terry R. Snyder
  14. John Castellanos v. United States of America v. United States
  15. United States v. Alexandro L. Alegria
  16. United States v. Thomas-Dimas Flores
  17. United States v. Govan M. McAbee Also Known as Carlos G. Williams
  18. United States v. Roosevelt Matthews
  19. United States v. Dale R. Eggen
  20. United States v. Robert W. McGrane
  21. United States v. Ricky J. Shugart
  22. United States v. Samir Shaban
  23. United States v. Larry Esser
  24. United States v. Claymor Adcock
  25. In the Matter of Bill T. Walker, No. D-228
  26. United States v. John E. Glasscock
  27. United States v. Kellie K. Gasser
  28. United States v. Willie W. Weaver
  29. United States v. Roy L. Wilson
  30. United States v. Robert E. Merriweather
  31. United States v. Milton Fletcher
  32. United States v. Jeffrey Cochran
  33. United States v. Cortez L. Travis
  34. United States v. Roy G. Roper
  35. United States v. Mylo B. Ellis
  36. United States v. Tina M. Luckett
  37. United States v. Jason E. Powers
  38. United States v. Henry L. Moss
  39. United States v. Carolyn Racine
  40. United States v. Larry Howard
  41. United States v. Carl Whitby
  42. United States v. Josiah Compton
  43. United States v. Charles A. Taylor
  44. United States v. Leonard Bunch
  45. United States v. Pete Upthegrove
  46. United States v. A.J. Jones
  47. United States v. Robert Harris
  48. in Re David A. Schulman v. the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Judicial District
  49. In Re Schulman
  50. Joseph James Bishop v. State