United States v. Stuckey

Eleventh Circuit

United States v. Stuckey

690 F. App'x 653

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit·Decided June 20, 2017·No. No. 16-16888 Non-Argument Calendar·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Robert Godfrey, appointed counsel for Antwon Stuckey, in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant, because, in his opinion, the appeal is without merit. Counsel has filed a brief 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 merit 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 Stuckey’s convictions and sentences are AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Robert Godfrey, appointed counsel for Antwon Stuckey, in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant, because, in his opinion, the appeal is without merit. Counsel has filed a brief 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 merit 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 Stuckey’s convictions and sentences are AFFIRMED.

United States v. Stuckey, 690 F. App'x 653 (11th Cir. 2017).

Pincite

690 F. App'x 653 (United States v. Stuckey) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related