United States v. Martinez, No. 20-50984 (5th Cir. 2021)Annotate this Case
Martinez pleaded guilty to drug and gun crimes. He filed a notice of appeal. His attorney later filed an “Anders” motion to withdraw. Martinez did not object to his attorney’s view that an appeal would be frivolous.
The Fifth Circuit addressed whether a conflict existed between “the oral pronouncement of the conditions of supervised release at sentencing and the written judgment setting forth those conditions” before dismissing the appeal. Martinez’s PSR recommended the “mandatory and standard conditions of supervision” plus a search condition. The district court confirmed that Martinez had reviewed the PSR and did not object, then announced that it was adopting the PSR. The subsequent written judgment included the 17 standard conditions listed in the Western District of Texas’s Order on Conditions of Probation and Supervised Release. The only conceivable pronouncement problem is that the district court did not cite the standing order when it orally imposed the “standard conditions.” That does not provide a basis for appeal. There is no notice problem. The PSR notified Martinez that “standard conditions” would likely be imposed. Given the longstanding existence of the standing order, defense counsel certainly knew that the standard conditions being imposed were listed in the standing order and included in the judgment form created by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on October 27, 2021.