Opinion ID: 6000
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: tarbox's motion for leave to withdraw

Text: 40 Because further proceedings will be required in connection with the government's appeal, the Court will not permit Tarbox to withdraw entirely from his representation of Humphrey. 2 Nonetheless, the Court will consider whether he may be relieved of any further obligation to pursue Humphrey's appeal, and whether that appeal should be dismissed as frivolous. 41 An attorney, whether appointed or paid, is under an ethical obligation to refuse to prosecute a frivolous appeal. McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, Dist. 1, 486 U.S. 429, 436, 108 S.Ct. 1895, 1900, 100 L.Ed.2d 440 (1988). An attorney presented with this dilemma is under an obligation to (1) advise his client that it would be a waste of money to prosecute the appeal and unethical for the lawyer to go forward with it, and (2) inform the court of his conclusion in a motion to withdraw. Id. at 437-39, 108 S.Ct. at 1901-02; Anders v. State of California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 1400, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). The motion to withdraw must be accompanied by a so-called Anders  or no merit brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal. McCoy, 486 U.S. at 439, 108 S.Ct. at 1902. 42 In his Anders brief, Tarbox points out that the jury's verdict was supported by substantial evidence. First, the cooperating individual testified that he purchased cocaine base from Humphrey. The jury had the discretion to believe this testimony and disbelieve the testimony of Humphrey and others who testified to the contrary. Second, Officer Bates testified that Humphrey threw the package of cocaine base while fleeing from the police--an allegation which Humphrey denied. Again, it was within the jury's discretion to believe the government witness, Officer Bates, and disbelieve Humphrey and his witnesses. 43 Tarbox also draws the Court's attention to the two evidentiary objections timely made by Humphrey's trial counsel. 44 As noted above, the district court admitted into evidence photographs of Humphrey's automobile, which Humphrey objected to as irrelevant and prejudicial. The photographs probably were irrelevant, as it was not disputed that Humphrey was present at the apartment complex at the time of the August 6, 1991 transaction, and Humphrey's automobile played no role in that transaction. However, it is clear that their admission, if erroneous, was harmless error. From a review of the record, it is clear that the photographs could not have substantially influenced the result, nor is there is grave doubt that the result was free from the substantial influence of the evidence. Bank of Nova Scotia v. United States, 487 U.S. 250, 256, 108 S.Ct. 2369, 2374, 101 L.Ed.2d 228 (1988); Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(a); Fed.R.Evid. 103(a). 45 Tarbox also notes that the district court admitted over Humphrey's objection a photograph of Humphrey taken shortly after the August 30, 1991 incident. The photograph was admissible for identification purposes, as the central issue concerning the August 30, 1991 incident was the identification of the individual who discarded the package containing cocaine base. Even if inadmissible, its admission was harmless error under Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(a) and Fed.R.Evid. 103(a). 46 In addition to considering the points raised by Tarbox, the Court has conducted an independent examination of the record. The record reveals that the district court made several other evidentiary rulings adverse to Humphrey other than those described by Tarbox. However, none of them constitute reversible error. 47 First, the district court admitted into evidence, during the direct testimony of Officer Brumley (the officer who arranged that purchase), the (alleged) cocaine base purchased by the cooperating individual in the August 6, 1991 transaction. Humphrey objected to the admission of the evidence, arguing that Brumley was unqualified to identify the substance as cocaine base. The material was later identified by a qualified chemist as cocaine base, however, rendering any error made by the court harmless. 48 Second, the district court sustained the government's objection to Humphrey's attempt to elicit personal background information from the cooperating individual. Even if this information was relevant, its exclusion was clearly harmless. 49 Third, Humphrey objected on relevancy grounds to the admission of his statement that he was not employed. The district court's decision to overrule this objection was correct, as the statement was relevant to the issue of how Humphrey acquired the $639 in cash found on his person when he was arrested on August 30, 1991. 50 Fourth, the district court permitted the government to cross-examine James Clark, a defense witness, about prior cocaine arrest. The district court ruled correctly, as Clark's prior arrest contradicted Clark's testimony that he knew nothing about the drug trade. 51 Finally, Officer Gregg testified that he recognized Humphrey from prior drug arrests or other dealings, implying that Humphrey had been involved in other drug transactions. Because the district court promptly instructed the jury to disregard that testimony, any prejudice it may have caused is insufficient to warrant a new trial. 52 The Court is unable to identify any possible grounds for appeal. From a review of the record, and the points raised in Tarbox's Anders brief, the Court concurs with Tarbox's conclusion that Humphrey's appeal is frivolous.