Post-trial issues

We talk a lot about appellate issues and whether they should be raised.  Of course in the military we have United States v. Grostefon.  There is also talk about changing the post-trial process and possibly placing more responsibility on the trial defense counsel to initially raise appellate issues (a broadening of Palenius).  So here is an interesting little case on how a federal district court resolves appellate issues under Anders.

After a jury trial, Jeffery Carter was convicted of distributing crack, see 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and the district court sentenced him to 180 months in prison. Carter filed a notice of appeal, but his appointed counsel now seeks to withdraw under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), because he cannot discern a nonfrivolous basis for appeal. Because counsel’s supporting brief is adequate, we limit our review to the potential issues identified in counsel’s brief and Carter’s Circuit Rule 51(b) response to his lawyer’s motion to withdraw. See United States v. Schuh, 289 F.3d 968, 973-74 (7th Cir. 2002).

United States v. Carter, No.08-1419, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 9939, at *1 (7th Cir. 2009).