Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Criminal Procedure — Anders briefs

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//April 26, 2012//

Criminal Procedure — Anders briefs

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//April 26, 2012//

Listen to this article

United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

Criminal

Criminal Procedure — Anders briefs

Where it is clear that the plea colloquy was sufficient, it is not necessary that the record reflect that the defendant does not wish to withdraw his plea in order to grant an appointed attorney’s Anders motion to withdraw.

“Some of our nonprecedential orders might be read to indicate that the burden rests on the client to alert counsel about his desire to withdraw the plea, but that is not what Knox said (and those orders are expressly nonprecedential in any event). See, e.g., United States v. Potts, 2012 WL 562189 (7th Cir. Feb. 22, 2012); United States v. Arguijo-Cervantes, 2012 WL 475928 (7th Cir. Feb. 15, 2012); United States v. Nuñez-Garcia, 455 F. App’x 698 (7th Cir. 2012). Knox instructs counsel both to consult with the client and to provide advice about the risks and benefits of any proposed course of action. Only if, after counsel has taken that step, the defendant confirms that he is not interested in withdrawing the plea, may counsel refrain from exploring possible arguments related to Rule 11.”

“As we noted, we cannot tell whether that process occurred in Konczak’s case. Despite this omission, however, there is no need for us to reject the Anders submission and require counsel to undertake the necessary consultation. The information contained in counsel’s brief and Konczak’s response, coupled with our own review of the record, convince us that a challenge to the plea would be frivolous. Counsel has not identified any deficiency in the plea colloquy, and the transcript shows that the district court substantially complied with the requirements of Rule 11 and ensured that the plea was voluntary. See FED. R. CRIM. P. 11; United States v. Bowlin, 534 F.3d 654, 656-57 (7th Cir. 2008); United States v. Blalock, 321 F.3d 686, 688 (7th Cir. 2003).”

Dismissed.

11-2969 U.S. v. Konczak

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois, McCuskey, J., Wood, J.

Polls

What kind of stories do you want to read more of?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests