Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-09-02558/USCOURTS-ca7-09-02558-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mozel Palmer
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

No. 09-2558

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

MOZEL PALMER,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Central District of Illinois.

No. 07-cr-10114-001—Michael M. Mihm, Judge.

SUBMITTED FEBRUARY 10, 2010—DECIDED APRIL 12, 2010

Before POSNER, TINDER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. Mozel Palmer was convicted after a jury

trial of conspiracy to possess and distribute powder and

crack cocaine, 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), and possession

with intent to distribute these drugs, id. § 841(a)(1). He

was sentenced to a total of 288 months’ imprisonment.

Palmer filed a notice of appeal, but his newly appointed

appellate lawyer represents that her client’s appeal is

frivolous and seeks leave to withdraw under Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

Case: 09-2558 Document: 15 Filed: 04/12/2010 Pages: 6
2 No. 09-2558

We held in United States v. Edwards, 777 F.2d 364, 366

(7th Cir. 1985), that an Anders submission must “identify,

with record references and case citations, any feature of

the proceeding in the district court that a court or another

lawyer might conceivably think worth citing to the appellate court as a possible ground of error.” This imperative

recognizes that a lawyer submitting an Anders motion is

an officer of the court and is essentially “offering an

expert opinion that the appeal is devoid of merit,” United

States v. Tabb, 125 F.3d 583, 584 (7th Cir. 1997), and so

we must have confidence that counsel thoroughly evaluated the record before we will let the lawyer guide our

assessment of the appeal, id. at 585. An Anders submission provides this assurance when the supporting

brief, at a minimum, fully explains the nature of the case.

See United States v. Hamzat, 217 F.3d 494, 501 (7th Cir.

2000); United States v. Fernandez, 174 F.3d 900, 901 (7th Cir.

1999); Tabb, 125 F.3d at 584; United States v. Wagner, 103

F.3d 551, 553 (7th Cir. 1996). But if the brief falls short

of that mark, we will not have faith in the lawyer’s opinion and must deny the motion to withdraw.

Counsel’s brief in this case mirrors an Anders motion

we rejected in Tabb. One of the defendants in that case

had been convicted after a jury trial, and his lawyer

submitted an Anders brief that discussed potential sentencing issues but said nothing about the conduct of the

trial. 125 F.3d at 585. We declined to require that every

Anders brief filed after a trial include potential claims

about the conviction, but we did emphasize that this

court will not infer that counsel made an informed decision to include only sentencing issues unless the

Case: 09-2558 Document: 15 Filed: 04/12/2010 Pages: 6
No. 09-2558 3

brief sets out the nature of the case and the course of proceedings in enough detail to demonstrate that counsel

evaluated the entire record. Id. And because counsel had

failed to make any reference to the conduct of his

client’s trial, we explained, we were not convinced that

“he made a reasoned decision not to raise the issues he

has omitted.” Id.

We are confronted with the same problem in Palmer’s

case. His lawyer discusses potential sentencing issues in

what appears to be an adequate manner and depth but

does not evaluate even one possible argument about

the underlying convictions. Those convictions followed

a jury trial that spanned five days and produced a transcript weighing in at more than 1,200 pages, and it

seems improbable that in those pages or elsewhere in

the pretrial proceedings there is nothing at all that “a

court or another lawyer might conceivably think worth

citing to the appellate court as a possible ground of error.”

See Edwards, 777 F.2d at 366. It could be that Palmer does

not wish to challenge his convictions, and if counsel had

said this in her brief, perhaps we could accept the representation without the need for a narrative about the

proceedings leading to the guilty verdicts. Cf. United

States v. Knox, 287 F.3d 667, 671 (7th Cir. 2002) (explaining

that a lawyer moving to withdraw under Anders

should ignore potential issues arising from a guilty plea

unless the defendant wants the plea set aside). Palmer

has not responded to our invitation to comment on counsel’s motion and brief. See CIR. R. 51(b). Such silence

might reflect agreement with counsel’s Anders motion;

however, we cannot consider a defendant’s decision not

Case: 09-2558 Document: 15 Filed: 04/12/2010 Pages: 6
4 No. 09-2558

to respond to be conclusive proof of acquiescence. See

Wagner, 103 F.3d at 552. But especially here, where

counsel is also silent about any potential trial errors, an

Anders brief will not be adequate unless its narrative of

the proceedings during and before trial convinces us

that counsel omitted by design, rather than oversight, all

discussion of potential appellate claims arising from

the defendant’s convictions. See Tabb, 125 F.3d at 585;

Wagner, 103 F.3d at 553. So much can happen during a

trial of this length, and when presented with an Anders

motion, we are not free to assume that counsel combed

the entire record but found nothing else worth discussing.

See McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wis., Dist. 1, 486 U.S. 429,

442 (1988); United States v. Pippen, 115 F.3d 422, 426 (7th

Cir. 1997).

We are comfortable inferring that counsel exercised

“sound judgment,” see Tabb, 125 F.3d at 585, in deciding to

forego discussing whether Palmer could challenge the

sufficiency of the evidence underlying his convictions.

Counsel includes a robust account of the overwhelming

evidence marshaled against Palmer at trial, and since

she did not represent him until this appeal, her detailed description must have been culled from carefully

reviewing the trial testimony and exhibits. But a claim

of insufficient evidence is just one of many appellate

issues that may arise when a criminal case is decided

at trial, and counsel’s chronicle of the evidence considered by the jury offers no assurance that she was

attentive to possible errors in the conduct of the trial or

the pretrial proceedings. Counsel does not mention, for

example, that Palmer objected to some of the trial

Case: 09-2558 Document: 15 Filed: 04/12/2010 Pages: 6
No. 09-2558 5

evidence, or that he was refused a jury instruction on

his theory of defense, or that he moved for a new trial

after the guilty verdicts. It may be that counsel evaluated

these disputed rulings and did not judge them worthy

of mention as potential issues, but her mastery of the

trial evidence is not enough for us to draw that inference.

It will be the unusual case when a lawyer representing

a defendant convicted at trial cannot identify anything

but sentencing issues to include in an Anders submission.

This appeal may be such an exception, but for now we

cannot rely on counsel’s representation that the case is

frivolous. The problem here is that counsel’s Anders

submission recounts the trial evidence in isolation

without any mention of the pretrial proceedings or the

conduct of Palmer’s trial. If counsel had disclosed the

disputes that arose before and during trial—if she had

provided context for her robust summary of the government’s evidence—then we would infer that she made

a reasoned decision not to identify any potential issue

arising from those adverse rulings. But as it now stands

this brief does not reflect the close scrutiny that we

expect from a lawyer who represents that her client’s

appeal is frivolous, and unless counsel revises her submission to fully explain the nature of the case and course

of proceedings, we cannot be confident that she conducted a thorough examination of the entire record with

an eye to all potential appellate issues. That process may

or may not bring to counsel’s attention additional matters worthy of inclusion in an Anders brief, but if it does

not, it will at least allow us to rely on counsel’s “expert

opinion” that the appeal is frivolous. See Tabb, 125 F.3d

at 584.

Case: 09-2558 Document: 15 Filed: 04/12/2010 Pages: 6
6 No. 09-2558

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is DENIED. Counsel

will have 60 days to revise her Anders submission to

comply with this opinion or, in the alternative, to file a

merits brief.

4-12-10

Case: 09-2558 Document: 15 Filed: 04/12/2010 Pages: 6