Background
Jason Pride pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possess fentanyl with intent to distribute. He was sentenced to two hundred eighty-eight months of imprisonment and five years of supervised release. His plea agreement included a waiver of the right to appeal, reserving only exceptions for sentences exceeding the statutory maximum and claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. After filing a timely appeal, his appointed attorney moved to withdraw, certifying that the appeal was wholly frivolous.
The court’s reasoning
The court first determined that the Anders brief was facially adequate, limiting its review to the record portions discussed by counsel. The court found that the district court’s order requiring Pride to provide financial information to a probation officer was not mandatory under Section eighteen hundred eighty-three of Title eighteen of the United States Code. The court noted that under United States v. Mendoza, such a condition must be reasonably related to sentencing factors, necessary to advance statutory goals, and consistent with Sentencing Commission policy. The court concluded that Mendoza provides a basis for a non-frivolous claim that the condition is improper. Furthermore, the court noted that the Supreme Court’s decision in Hunter v. United States recognized a miscarriage-of-justice exception to appeal waivers, which could potentially apply if the sentence exceeds statutory limits. This combination of Mendoza and Hunter created a non-frivolous argument that the financial disclosure condition was improper, preventing the appeal from being wholly frivolous.
What it means going forward
Appointed counsel must proceed to file a merits brief on the appeal rather than withdrawing, allowing the court to review the validity of the financial disclosure condition on supervised release.