Court Description: [Per Curiam - Before Loken, Shepherd and Stras, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. Anders case. The brief filed by appointed counsel falls short of Anders' requirements; while it identifies issues for review, the brief fails to advocate for reversal, offering only arguments in favor of affirming the district court; counsel's motion to withdraw is denied, and counsel is ordered to file a brief which complies with Anders.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on January 22, 2021.
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 19-3263 ___________________________ United States of America Plaintiff - Appellee v. Carlos Exinia, Jr. Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines ____________ Filed: October 14, 2020 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, SHEPHERD, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Carlos Exinia appeals the sentence imposed by the district court 1 after he pleaded guilty to drug and firearm offenses. His appointed counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 1 The Honorable Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. (1967) (describing the duties of appointed counsel when counsel concludes that a direct criminal appeal is frivolous and moves to withdraw). Exinia has filed motions for appointment of counsel. Upon careful review, we conclude that the brief filed by Exinia’s counsel falls short of the requirements of Anders. Although the brief identifies potential issues, instead of identifying possible arguments for reversal, it offers only arguments in favor of affirming the district court. We have been clear that “Anders ‘briefing must be done as an advocate,’” Evans v. Clarke, 868 F.2d 267, 268 (8th Cir. 1989) (citation omitted), and, that “[c]ounsel [does] not act as an advocate for [appellant] when he brief[s] all issues in favor of the government and conclude[s appellant’s] claims [are] meritless.” Robinson v. Black, 812 F.2d 1084, 1086 (8th Cir. 1987). Counsel’s motion to withdraw is denied and appellant’s counsel is ordered to file, within 30 days, a brief which complies with the requirements of Anders. ______________________________ -2-
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
