Opinion ID: 3056610
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Felix’s Filings on Appeal

Text: On appeal to this Court, Felix’s counsel originally filed a brief and motion to withdraw from representation, pursuant to the procedure outlined in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). After we denied Felix’s counsel’s first motion to withdraw, Felix’s counsel filed a renewed motion, again asserting that there were no issues of arguable merit for purposes of appeal. Felix opposed counsel’s renewed motion, arguing that he had pled guilty to the wrong charge based on the incorrect advice of counsel, who told him that the record would be corrected to reflect that he was actually pleading guilty to Count 3 of the indictment. Felix further argued that “[h]ad [he] known he would plead guilty to § 2251(a), [he] would not have entered plea during his Rule 11 hearing.” We denied Felix’s counsel’s renewed motion to withdraw, directing counsel 13 Case: 11-11173 Date Filed: 11/20/2012 Page: 14 of 22 to file a brief addressing whether the magistrate judge, during Felix’s plea colloquy, had complied with the second core concern of Rule 11 by ensuring that Felix understood the nature of the charge to which he pled guilty. Thereafter, Felix’s counsel filed a brief challenging the validity of Felix’s guilty plea. The government filed a brief in opposition, arguing first that Felix had waived any challenge to his guilty plea by failing to object to the magistrate judge’s R&R that found that Felix’s plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered, and second, that Felix’s guilty plea was valid. Felix’s counsel did not file a reply brief.