United States v. Haynes
This text of 444 F. App'x 398 (United States v. Haynes) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Arthur J. Madden, III, appointed counsel for Maurice Haynes, has filed a motion to withdraw on appeal supported by a brief prepared pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merits of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Haynes’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED. This case is REMANDED to the district court, however, with instructions to correct a clerical error in the written judgment. See United States v. Diaz, 190 F.3d 1247, 1251-53 (11th Cir.1999) (remanding for the purpose of correcting clerical error in the defendant’s judgment). Rather than indicating that Haynes pled guilty, the judgment should indicate that Haynes was found guilty by a jury after pleading not guilty.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
444 F. App'x 398, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-haynes-ca11-2011.