USA v. Darrell Johns, No. 14-30055 (5th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 14-30055 Document: 00512854856 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/02/2014 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 14-30055 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED December 2, 2014 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff–Appellee, Lyle W. Cayce Clerk v. DARRELL R. JOHNS, Defendant–Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 5:13-CR-71-1 Before PRADO, OWEN, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The attorney appointed to represent Darrell R. Johns has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Johns has filed a response asserting that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and challenging the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress, 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. * Case: 14-30055 Document: 00512854856 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/02/2014 No. 14-30055 the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction, and the district court’s denial of his pretrial pro se motion for the appointment of new counsel. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Johns’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claims without prejudice to Johns raising them on collateral review. 1 We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Johns’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 2 See United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 123 (2014) (No. 13-10484). 1 2 See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. 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.
