United States v. John T. Millwood

Eleventh Circuit

United States v. John T. Millwood

961 F.2d 194, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 10420, 1992 WL 84918

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

DecidedMay 14, 1992

Docket91-8295

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 961 F.2d 194 (United States v. John T. Millwood) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh 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. John T. Millwood, 961 F.2d 194, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 10420, 1992 WL 84918 (11th Cir. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the sentence he received in the district court for conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine, 21 U.S.C. § 846 (1988). He assigns three points of error, none of which was raised in the district court; he also claims that the trial attorney failed to render him effective assistance of counsel. With respect to this latter claim, we do not consider ineffective counsel claims on direct appeal from a conviction. See, e.g., United States v. Griffin, 699 F.2d 1102, 1107-09 (11th Cir.1983). The same policy logically should apply to direct appeals from sentences; thus, we refuse to consider appellant’s ineffective assistance claim at this time. Whether counsél rendered ineffective assistance should be determined in the first instance by the district court on a fully developed evidentiary record. Once such a determination has been made, we will review it.

In United States v. Jones, 899 F.2d 1097 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 111 S.Ct. 275,112 L.Ed.2d 230 (1990), in the exercise of our supervisory power, we directed the district courts, after imposing sentence, to elicit the parties’ objections, if any, to the sentence. We did this to facilitate appellate review, and moreover, to enable the district court to correct on the spot any error that may have occurred in reaching the sentence and thus, perhaps, to render an appeal unnecessary. In this case, the district court failed to elicit the parties’ objections; hence, they are presented to us for the first time. The district court, as we said in Jones, should pass on them first. We therefore vacate appellant's sentence and remand the case for further proceedings.

VACATED and REMANDED.

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

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the sentence he received in the district court for conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine, 21 U.S.C. § 846 (1988). He assigns three points of error, none of which was raised in the district court; he also claims that the trial attorney failed to render him effective assistance of counsel. With respect to this latter claim, we do not consider ineffective counsel claims on direct appeal from a conviction. See, e.g., United States v. Griffin, 699 F.2d 1102, 1107-09 (11th Cir.1983). The same policy logically should apply to direct appeals from sentences; thus, we refuse to consider appellant’s ineffective assistance claim at this time. Whether counsél rendered ineffective assistance should be determined in the first instance by the district court on a fully developed evidentiary record. Once such a determination has been made, we will review it.

In United States v. Jones, 899 F.2d 1097 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 111 S.Ct. 275,112 L.Ed.2d 230 (1990), in the exercise of our supervisory power, we directed the district courts, after imposing sentence, to elicit the parties’ objections, if any, to the sentence. We did this to facilitate appellate review, and moreover, to enable the district court to correct on the spot any error that may have occurred in reaching the sentence and thus, perhaps, to render an appeal unnecessary. In this case, the district court failed to elicit the parties’ objections; hence, they are presented to us for the first time. The district court, as we said in Jones, should pass on them first. We therefore vacate appellant's sentence and remand the case for further proceedings.

VACATED and REMANDED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

961 F.2d 194, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 10420, 1992 WL 84918, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-john-t-millwood-ca11-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack