Opinion ID: 2899256
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Procedural History on Appeal

Text: Coriolant’s appointed appellate counsel submitted a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that no non-frivolous grounds for appeal existed. For the first time on appeal in his pro se response to his appellate counsel’s Anders brief, Coriolant contends, inter alia, that the district court was biased and improperly participated in plea negotiations. Specifically, Coriolant asserts that the district court actively discouraged his trial attorney from negotiating a plea agreement with the government, which he contends is a violation of Rule 11. As proof of the district court’s improper participation in plea negotiations, Coriolant submits a letter purportedly written to him by Doskey in December 2012. The letter details a chance 3 Case: 13-30160 Document: 00513184241 Page: 4 Date Filed: 09/08/2015 No. 13-30160 encounter between Coriolant’s counsel and his trial judge, at which time Coriolant alleges the judge improperly injected himself into pending plea negotiations. 1 In response to a supplemental Anders brief, Coriolant filed a second pro se response, reasserting the Rule 11 issue. In this second response, Coriolant reiterated many of the arguments from his initial pro se response, and stated that he felt the district court’s alleged improper participation in the plea negotiations left him with no other choice but to go to trial. This appeal followed.