United States v. Bagnell
This text of 71 F. App'x 644 (United States v. Bagnell) 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.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Brandon Bagnell appeals his conviction after a jury found him guilty of being a [645]*645felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.
Bagnell contends his conviction should be vacated because he was denied effective assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment. Bagnell’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is inappropriate on direct appeal because the record is not sufficiently developed to allow review, and the legal representation was not so inadequate that it clearly denied Bagnell his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. See United States v. Reyes-Platero, 224 F.3d 1112, 1116 (9th Cir.2000) (holding that record insufficiently developed to review ineffective assistance claim where trial counsel’s motives unclear).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
71 F. App'x 644, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-bagnell-ca9-2003.