USA v. Tony Wynn
Filing
Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Tony Wynn. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. Motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Thomas G. Ledford is GRANTED. [7485880-2]. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions.
Case: 15-11055
Date Filed: 11/24/2015
Page: 1 of 2
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-11055
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cr-00051-WLS-TQL-6
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
TONY WYNN,
Defendant - Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Georgia
________________________
(November 24, 2015)
Before MARTIN, JILL PRYOR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Thomas Ledford, appointed counsel for Tony Wynn in this direct criminal
appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of Mr. Wynn and
Case: 15-11055
Date Filed: 11/24/2015
Page: 2 of 2
prepared a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Our
independent review of the 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 Mr. Wynn’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED. 1
1
We acknowledge that Mr. Wynn expressed dissatisfaction with counsel’s performance
leading up to his guilty plea and that he might wish to argue that counsel was ineffective in that
respect. Such claims, however, generally “are not considered for the first time on direct appeal,”
but rather are best reserved for postconviction proceedings. United States v. Tyndale, 209 F.3d
1292, 1294 (11th Cir. 2000); see Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500, 504-05 (2003).
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?