Amilcar A.J. Marchetti v. United States

Ninth Circuit

Amilcar A.J. Marchetti v. United States

47 F.3d 1175, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 19425, 1995 WL 62743

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 14, 1995

Docket94-55130

StatusUnpublished

This text of 47 F.3d 1175 (Amilcar A.J. Marchetti v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Amilcar A.J. Marchetti v. United States, 47 F.3d 1175, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 19425, 1995 WL 62743 (9th Cir. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

47 F.3d 1175

NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
Amilcar A.J. MARCHETTI, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 94-55130.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 5, 1994.*
Decided Feb. 14, 1995.

Before: FARRIS, POOLE and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM**

The district court found that defendant rejected the plea agreement because he did not want a seven year sentence, not because he was misinformed about whether there was a "lid" on the offer. ER 142-43. That finding is not clearly erroneous, particularly in light of defendant's own testimony that he asked counsel to negotiate a plea for a shorter (presumably firm) sentence of three years. ER 119. Accordingly, even if it were established that counsel's failure to explain the mechanism of a Rule 11(e)(1)(C) plea agreement fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, defendant could not show that the alleged ineffective assistance "had an adverse effect on the defense." Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 693 (1984).

Ordinarily, criminal defendants are given wide latitude to raise issues on appeal, but we remanded this case for the very limited purpose of determining whether defendant was denied effective assistance of counsel during plea negotiations. Any other issues, including defendant's claim of bias on the part of the district judge, could not be raised before the district court on remand and are not properly before us. See Fed.R.App.Proc. 38.

AFFIRMED.

*

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

47 F.3d 1175

NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
Amilcar A.J. MARCHETTI, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 94-55130.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 5, 1994.*
Decided Feb. 14, 1995.

Before: FARRIS, POOLE and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM**

The district court found that defendant rejected the plea agreement because he did not want a seven year sentence, not because he was misinformed about whether there was a "lid" on the offer. ER 142-43. That finding is not clearly erroneous, particularly in light of defendant's own testimony that he asked counsel to negotiate a plea for a shorter (presumably firm) sentence of three years. ER 119. Accordingly, even if it were established that counsel's failure to explain the mechanism of a Rule 11(e)(1)(C) plea agreement fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, defendant could not show that the alleged ineffective assistance "had an adverse effect on the defense." Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 693 (1984).

Ordinarily, criminal defendants are given wide latitude to raise issues on appeal, but we remanded this case for the very limited purpose of determining whether defendant was denied effective assistance of counsel during plea negotiations. Any other issues, including defendant's claim of bias on the part of the district judge, could not be raised before the district court on remand and are not properly before us. See Fed.R.App.Proc. 38.

AFFIRMED.

*

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

47 F.3d 1175, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 19425, 1995 WL 62743, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/amilcar-aj-marchetti-v-united-states-ca9-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack