United States v. Zaid Wakil

700 F. App'x 685
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedOctober 27, 2017
Docket15-50380
StatusUnpublished

This text of 700 F. App'x 685 (United States v. Zaid Wakil) 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. Zaid Wakil, 700 F. App'x 685 (9th Cir. 2017).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Zaid Wakil appeals his jury conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and three counts of possession with intent to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a).

1. Wakil did not knowingly and intelligently waive his right to counsel because the district court failed to ensure that he understood the possible penalties he faced. See United States v. Erskine, 355 F.3d 1161, 1167 (9th Cir. 2004) (setting forth the conditions that need to be met in order for a Faretta waiver to be deemed valid).

2. Contrary to the government’s suggestion, remand is inappropriate. In limited circumstances, we may remand if “the record suggests that there is additional evidence available about the adequacy of a waiver.” United States v. Kimmel, 672 F.2d 720, 722 (9th Cir. 1982). But remand is the exception, not the rule, and it is not appropriate here because nothing in the record suggests that there are undiscovered facts showing that Wakil was aware of the possible penalties at the time of his waiver. We therefore reverse the district court’s judgment and remand for a new trial.

3.It is unnecessary to reach Wakil’s remaining claims in light of the disposition of this case.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 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

United States v. James David Kimmel
672 F.2d 720 (Ninth Circuit, 1982)
United States v. Erik D. Erskine
355 F.3d 1161 (Ninth Circuit, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
700 F. App'x 685, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-zaid-wakil-ca9-2017.