Court Opinion

ID: 9496549
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 16:29:32.771309+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:57:39.029736
License: Public Domain

COLE, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I respectfully concur in the majority opinion; however, I write separately to address the majority’s conclusion that the merits of rules governing the filing of an Anders brief are better left to this court’s rulemaking process.
Because, as the majority acknowledges, the Sixth Amendment issues surrounding the trial counsel’s filing of an Anders brief are moot, the merits of those claims are beyond the jurisdiction of this Article III court. Any further comment pertaining to the constitutionality of current procedures governing the filing of an Anders brief is, therefore, nonbinding dictum. Cf. Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275, 282, 121 S.Ct. 1511, 149 L.Ed.2d 517 (2001) (“[Tjhis Court is bound by holdings, not language.”)
While I generally agree that new rules should be proposed and adopted in accordance with our established procedures, which include input from the legal bar, there are instances where it would be appropriate for this Court to adopt a new rule outside our established procedures. I would not foreclose the opportunity for a party to propose a new rule in the context of an appeal nor would I limit the ability of this Court to announce a new rule, if the circumstances so warranted.