United States v. Miguel Rodriguez

Fifth Circuit

United States v. Miguel Rodriguez

582 F.2d 1015, 1978 U.S. App. LEXIS 8138

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedOctober 27, 1978

Docket78-5288

StatusPublished

Cited by26 cases

This text of 582 F.2d 1015 (United States v. Miguel Rodriguez) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth 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. Miguel Rodriguez, 582 F.2d 1015, 1978 U.S. App. LEXIS 8138 (5th Cir. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

A jury found Miguel Rodriguez guilty of possession of heroin with intent to distribute, distribution of heroin, and conspiracy both to possess and to distribute heroin. Appellant, through different counsel than the attorney who represented him at all proceedings in the District Court, appeals on the sole ground that he was denied effective assistance of counsel at trial. The law of this Circuit is that claims of inadequate representation cannot be determined on direct appeal where such claims were not raised before the District Court and there has been no opportunity to develop and include in the record evidence bearing on the merits of the allegations. See United States v. Prince, 5 Cir., 1972, 456 F.2d 1070; United States v. Hunter, 5 Cir., 1969, 417 F.2d 296. The convictions are affirmed without prejudice to the right of Rodriguez to raise the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel in a proper proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

AFFIRMED.

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

PER CURIAM:

A jury found Miguel Rodriguez guilty of possession of heroin with intent to distribute, distribution of heroin, and conspiracy both to possess and to distribute heroin. Appellant, through different counsel than the attorney who represented him at all proceedings in the District Court, appeals on the sole ground that he was denied effective assistance of counsel at trial. The law of this Circuit is that claims of inadequate representation cannot be determined on direct appeal where such claims were not raised before the District Court and there has been no opportunity to develop and include in the record evidence bearing on the merits of the allegations. See United States v. Prince, 5 Cir., 1972, 456 F.2d 1070; United States v. Hunter, 5 Cir., 1969, 417 F.2d 296. The convictions are affirmed without prejudice to the right of Rodriguez to raise the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel in a proper proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

582 F.2d 1015, 1978 U.S. App. LEXIS 8138, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-miguel-rodriguez-ca5-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack