United States v. David Garner, No. 21-3761 (8th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Defendant is an inmate serving a sentence in federal custody after he was convicted in 2007 for unlawful possession of a firearm as a convicted felon. After a hearing, the district court ordered Defendant committed to the custody of the Attorney General for treatment of a mental disease or defect at the Federal Medical Center in Springfield, Missouri. Defendant filed a notice of appeal on his own without counsel, and the clerk of this court appointed the federal public defender to represent Defendant on appeal. Counsel filed a motion to withdraw from representing Defendant and a separate motion to file counsel’s motion to withdraw under seal.
The Eighth Circuit denied the motion to file under seal as overbroad. The court explained that a proper motion to seal should be narrowly drawn and accompanied by a proposed redacted filing for the public docket. Here, counsel’s present motion seeks to seal the entire motion to withdraw without any proffered justification. Further, counsel failed to state any cited authority or developed an argument as to why a court’s decision to commit a person against his will for mental health treatment should be made and reviewed in secret.
However, the court granted the the motion to withdraw and will not require a brief of the sort described in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). The court wrote that on review of the motion and the record, the court is satisfied that counsel’s ethical obligation to refrain from prosecuting a frivolous appeal justifies his motion to withdraw.
Court Description: [Colloton, Author, with Benton and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Civil Commitment. Appellant's attorney has filed a motion to withdraw from the appeal and to seal the motion to withdraw. A proper motion to seal should be narrowly drawn and accompanied by a proposed redacted filing for the public docket; as counsel's present motion seeks to seal the entire motion to withdraw, only a small part of which refers to private medical information, without any proffered justification, the motion to seal is denied. Further, any motion to seal must justify why the psychological reports and conclusions should be filed under seal; any renewed motion to seal should address specifically why information that is material to a decision on whether a person is properly committed involuntarily for mental health treatment should not be available for public scrutiny. With respect to counsel's motion to withdraw which suggests there are no non-frivolous issues for appeal and that counsel is ethically obliged to withdraw the motion is granted; further, the court will not require an Anders brief as a person subject to a hearing on his mental condition has a statutory, but not a constitutional right to counsel; it follows that there is no constitutional right to counsel on appeal from an order of commitment for treatment; on review of the motion and record, the court is satisfied that counsel's ethical obligation to refrain from prosecuting a frivolous appeal justifies his motion to withdraw.
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.