Narrative Opinion Summary
Anthony Martinez appeals his guilty plea conviction and 120-month sentence for conspiracy to possess methamphetamine with intent to distribute, violating 21 U.S.C. § 846. Following the guidelines of Anders v. California, his counsel filed a brief asserting there are no grounds for relief and requested to withdraw as counsel. Martinez was given the opportunity to submit a pro se supplemental brief, but none was filed. An independent review of the record, in line with Penson v. Ohio, revealed no viable grounds for relief on direct appeal. Consequently, counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted, and the district court's judgment is affirmed. This decision is not suitable for publication and does not serve as precedent, as specified by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Independent Review of Record under Penson v. Ohiosubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: An independent review of the record was conducted to verify the absence of viable grounds for relief on direct appeal, in accordance with Penson v. Ohio.
Reasoning: An independent review of the record, in line with Penson v. Ohio, revealed no viable grounds for relief on direct appeal.
Non-Precedential Nature of Decisionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The decision is not published and does not serve as precedent, consistent with the rules governing unpublished opinions in the Ninth Circuit.
Reasoning: This decision is not suitable for publication and does not serve as precedent, as specified by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Pro Se Supplemental Brief Opportunitysubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The defendant was given the opportunity to file a supplemental brief pro se, which is a procedural right in the appellate review process.
Reasoning: Martinez was given the opportunity to submit a pro se supplemental brief, but none was filed.
Withdrawal of Counsel under Anders v. Californiasubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Counsel for the defendant sought to withdraw by asserting no grounds for relief exist, following the procedure established in Anders v. California.
Reasoning: Following the guidelines of Anders v. California, his counsel filed a brief asserting there are no grounds for relief and requested to withdraw as counsel.