Summary
Julio Ramos filed a second direct appeal from his 2002 drug trafficking convictions, which the Fifth Circuit dismissed as frivolous. The court held that a defendant is not entitled to a second direct appeal from the same judgment, and that the right to appointed counsel extends only to the first direct appeal. The appeal was dismissed under 5th Cir. R. 42.2, and the motion for appointment of counsel was denied.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Ramos's second appeal from the same criminal judgment is properly before the court.
- Whether Ramos is entitled to the appointment of counsel for his second appeal.
Holdings
- A second appeal from the same convictions is not properly before the court.
- A defendant is entitled to the appointment of counsel only for his first direct appeal.
Key quotations
“We may dismiss an appeal when considering an interlocutory motion if the appeal "is frivolous and entirely without merit." 5th Cir. R. 42.2.” (at 2)
“Ramos is not entitled to two appeals, and his second appeal from the same convictions is "not properly before this Court."” (at 2)
“A defendant is entitled to the appointment of counsel only for his first direct appeal.” (at 2)
Factual background
Ramos was convicted by jury verdict of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and marijuana, and possession with intent to distribute cocaine, and aiding and abetting. He was sentenced to 405 months imprisonment in 2002. He appealed and the Fifth Circuit affirmed in 2003. In 2020, he filed a second notice of appeal from the same 2002 judgment and moved for appointment of counsel.
Procedural history
Ramos was convicted in 2002 and sentenced to 405 months imprisonment. He appealed and the Fifth Circuit affirmed in 2003 (United States v. Ramos, 71 F. App'x 334). In 2020, he filed a second notice of appeal from the same judgment and moved for appointment of counsel.