United States v. Armando Lucero

Ninth Circuit

United States v. Armando Lucero

443 F.2d 64, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 10142

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMay 18, 1971

Docket26248, 26249

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 443 F.2d 64 (United States v. Armando Lucero) 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

United States v. Armando Lucero, 443 F.2d 64, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 10142 (9th Cir. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The appellant was convicted and sentenced under two indictments charging him with the smuggling and transportation of aliens (18 U.S.C. § 1324). The sentences were made to run concurrently-

Appellant now contends that the judgment of the trial court must be reversed because of error in allowing the introduction of hearsay evidence. There was no objection made at the trial to its reception. He also contends that he was denied the adequate assistance of counsel. For the following reasons, the judgment must be affirmed.

(1) The hearsay related only to charges under one of the two indictments. The concurrent sentences rule makes examination of this assignment of error unnecessary. Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784, 89 S.Ct. 2056, 23 L. Ed.2d 707 (1969); Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U.S. 81, 105, 63 S.Ct. 1375, 87 L.Ed. 1774 (1943); United States v. Jack, 439 F.2d 879 (9th Cir. 1971). There is no merit to the contention that the introduction of this evidence “contaminated” the entire trial. United States v. Jack, supra.

(2) The record does not disclose the gross inadequacy of counsel which is required before this court will consider this contention on direct review. United States v. Johnson, 434 F.2d 827, 830 (9th Cir. 1970); United States v. Porter, 431 F.2d 7 (9th Cir. 1970).

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

PER CURIAM:

The appellant was convicted and sentenced under two indictments charging him with the smuggling and transportation of aliens (18 U.S.C. § 1324). The sentences were made to run concurrently-

Appellant now contends that the judgment of the trial court must be reversed because of error in allowing the introduction of hearsay evidence. There was no objection made at the trial to its reception. He also contends that he was denied the adequate assistance of counsel. For the following reasons, the judgment must be affirmed.

(1) The hearsay related only to charges under one of the two indictments. The concurrent sentences rule makes examination of this assignment of error unnecessary. Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784, 89 S.Ct. 2056, 23 L. Ed.2d 707 (1969); Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U.S. 81, 105, 63 S.Ct. 1375, 87 L.Ed. 1774 (1943); United States v. Jack, 439 F.2d 879 (9th Cir. 1971). There is no merit to the contention that the introduction of this evidence “contaminated” the entire trial. United States v. Jack, supra.

(2) The record does not disclose the gross inadequacy of counsel which is required before this court will consider this contention on direct review. United States v. Johnson, 434 F.2d 827, 830 (9th Cir. 1970); United States v. Porter, 431 F.2d 7 (9th Cir. 1970).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

443 F.2d 64, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 10142, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-armando-lucero-ca9-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack