United States v. Trent Brewer
This text of United States v. Trent Brewer (United States v. Trent Brewer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Case: 17-41173 Document: 00514494283 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/31/2018
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
No. 17-41173 Fifth Circuit
FILED May 31, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff−Appellee,
versus
TRENT BREWER,
Defendant−Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas No. 4:07-CR-246-12
Before SMITH, HAYNES, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
Trent Brewer, federal prisoner #24313-077, who pleaded guilty of
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. Case: 17-41173 Document: 00514494283 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/31/2018
No. 17-41173
conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine, moves for the appoint- ment of counsel. He purports to have filed a second direct appeal seeking to challenge his career-offender sentencing enhancement.
An indigent defendant in a felony case must be provided counsel on direct appeal as of right. United States v. Palomo, 80 F.3d 138, 141 (5th Cir. 1996); 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(1)(A), (c). Brewer, however, already has filed a direct appeal of his conviction and initial sentence. See United States v. Brewer, 344 F. App’x 947 (5th Cir. 2009). A defendant “is not entitled to two appeals,” and a second appeal from the same conviction is “not properly before this Court.” United States v. Arlt, 567 F.2d 1295, 1296−97 (5th Cir. 1978); accord United States v. Rodriguez, 821 F.3d 632, 633 (5th Cir. 2016). A defendant is entitled to the appointment of counsel only for his first direct appeal. See Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987).
The motion is DENIED. Because the second appeal is not properly before this court, it is DISMISSED as frivolous. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
United States v. Trent Brewer, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-trent-brewer-ca5-2018.