Filed: Aug. 20, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 98-50091 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, VERSUS CESAR OCTAVIO MORALES-HINOJOSA, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court For the Western District of Texas EP-97-CR-569-1-DB August 13, 1998 Before Duhé, Benavides, and Parker, Circuit Judges. ROBERT M. PARKER, Circuit Judge*: Court-appointed counsel for Cesar Octavio Morales-Hinojosa has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 3
Summary: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 98-50091 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, VERSUS CESAR OCTAVIO MORALES-HINOJOSA, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court For the Western District of Texas EP-97-CR-569-1-DB August 13, 1998 Before Duhé, Benavides, and Parker, Circuit Judges. ROBERT M. PARKER, Circuit Judge*: Court-appointed counsel for Cesar Octavio Morales-Hinojosa has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 38..
More
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-50091
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
VERSUS
CESAR OCTAVIO MORALES-HINOJOSA,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Western District of Texas
EP-97-CR-569-1-DB
August 13, 1998
Before Duhé, Benavides, and Parker, Circuit Judges.
ROBERT M. PARKER, Circuit Judge*:
Court-appointed counsel for Cesar Octavio Morales-Hinojosa has
filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967)
and a motion for leave to withdraw as counsel. Morales-Hinojosa
has filed a response. Upon independent review of the record, we
find that counsel’s Anders brief is inadequate. In order for an
Anders brief to be adequate, counsel must refer to anything in the
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
record that might arguably support the appeal.
Id. at 744. Our
independent review reveals two potential errors which are
conspicuously absent from the Anders brief. We do not foreclose
the possibility that other errors exist.
Accordingly, it is ordered that counsel’s motion for leave to
withdraw as counsel is denied. It is further ordered that the
Anders brief be stricken. It is further ordered that counsel brief
the sufficiency of the district court’s explanation of the effects
of violating supervised release and explanation that the answers
Morales-Hinojosa would provide to the court’s questions could later
be used against him in a prosecution for perjury or false
statement.
MOTION DENIED. ANDERS BRIEF STRICKEN.
2