United States v. Edison Tortice ( 2023 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        MAY 5 2023
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No.    21-10287
    Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No. 3:19-cr-08077-SPL-1
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    EDISON GICELA TORTICE, AKA Edison
    Tortice,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Arizona
    Steven P. Logan, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted April 17, 2023**
    Before:      CLIFTON, R. NELSON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
    Edison Gicela Tortice appeals from the district court’s judgment and
    challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 293-month sentence for abusive sexual
    contact of a child, in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. §§ 1153
    , 2244(a)(5), and 2246.
    Pursuant to Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
     (1967), Tortice’s counsel has filed
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw
    as counsel of record. We have provided Tortice the opportunity to file a pro se
    supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been
    filed.
    Tortice waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence. Our
    independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 
    488 U.S. 75
    , 80
    (1988), discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the waiver. See United
    States v. Watson, 
    582 F.3d 974
    , 986-88 (9th Cir. 2009). We accordingly dismiss
    the appeal except as to Special Conditions 1 and 5, which we vacate and remand.
    See United States v. Nishida, 
    53 F.4th 1144
    , 1151-55 (9th Cir. 2022); see also
    Watson, 
    582 F.3d at 977
     (an appeal waiver does not bar a constitutional challenge
    to a supervised release condition). On remand, the district court must reevaluate
    Special Conditions 1 and 5 in light of Nishida and the post-Nishida changes made
    in the District of Arizona to these special conditions.
    Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
    DISMISSED in part; VACATED in part; and REMANDED with
    instructions.
    2                                   21-10287
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 21-10287

Filed Date: 5/5/2023

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 5/5/2023