USA v. Wilkes, No. 23-40158 (5th Cir. 2023)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 23-40158 Document: 00516887480 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/07/2023 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ No. 23-40158 Summary Calendar ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED September 7, 2023 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Robert Lee Wilkes, Jr., Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:21-CR-1856-1 ______________________________ Before Stewart, Elrod, and Southwick, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Robert Lee Wilkes, Jr., 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). Wilkes has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 23-40158 Document: 00516887480 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/07/2023 No. 23-40158 Wilkes’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claims without prejudice to collateral review. See United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014). We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Wilkes’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. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Our review reveals a clerical error in the written judgment. Wilkes pleaded guilty to count six of the indictment. The judgment states that he pleaded guilty to count six of the indictment, but it also lists that he was adjudicated guilty of count one. Thus, this matter is REMANDED for the limited purpose of correcting the clerical error in the judgment in accordance with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36. 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.