United States v. Jose Mendez

Ninth Circuit

United States v. Jose Mendez

452 F. App'x 739

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided October 5, 2011·No. 09-10372·Unpublished

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Jose Esquivel Mendez appeals from his jury-trial conviction for various drug offenses and avoidance of examination by immigration officers. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

*740 Esquivel Mendez contends that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. Specifically, he contends that counsel failed to argue for the admissibility of testimony under either Fed.R.Evid. 803(3) or Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Hillmon, 145 U.S. 285, 12 S.Ct. 909, 36 L.Ed. 706 (1892), and that counsel failed to “preserve” the government’s plea offer or determine when it expired. We decline to review this claim on direct appeal because there is neither a sufficiently developed record, nor evidence of such obvious denial of adequate representation, to warrant departure from the rule that claims of ineffective assistance are generally inappropriate on direct appeal and should be raised in habeas corpus proceedings. See United States v. McKenna, 327 F.3d 830, 845 (9th Cir.2003).

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 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

MEMORANDUM **

Jose Esquivel Mendez appeals from his jury-trial conviction for various drug offenses and avoidance of examination by immigration officers. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

*740 Esquivel Mendez contends that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. Specifically, he contends that counsel failed to argue for the admissibility of testimony under either Fed.R.Evid. 803(3) or Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Hillmon, 145 U.S. 285, 12 S.Ct. 909, 36 L.Ed. 706 (1892), and that counsel failed to “preserve” the government’s plea offer or determine when it expired. We decline to review this claim on direct appeal because there is neither a sufficiently developed record, nor evidence of such obvious denial of adequate representation, to warrant departure from the rule that claims of ineffective assistance are generally inappropriate on direct appeal and should be raised in habeas corpus proceedings. See United States v. McKenna, 327 F.3d 830, 845 (9th Cir.2003).

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

United States v. Jose Mendez, 452 F. App'x 739 (9th Cir. 2011).

Pincite

452 F. App'x 739 (United States v. Jose Mendez) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related