United States v. Sanchez-Alvarado ( 2000 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
JAN 5 2000
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 98-4131
RAFAEL SANCHEZ-ALVARADO, (D.C. No. 97-CR-408-W)
(D. Utah)
Defendant-Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before SEYMOUR, Chief Judge, BALDOCK, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. **
Defendant Raphael Sanchez-Alvarado appeals his conviction, raising the
sole issue that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Because
ineffective assistance of counsel claims, absent exceptional circumstances, should
be raised in a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, see United States v.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
**
After examining the briefs and appellate record, the panel has
determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the
determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)(c); 10th Cir. R.
34.1(G). This case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Galloway , 56 F.3d 1239, 1240 (10th Cir. 1995), we dismiss the appeal without
prejudice to his right to raise the issue again in a collateral proceeding.
On direct appeal, Defendant argues that his trial counsel was ineffective
because during trial he stipulated to evidence that was strong evidence of
Defendant’s guilt, without demonstrating that he made the stipulation for strategic
or tactical reasons or for favorable sentencing. During the prosecution’s case,
Defendant’s counsel agreed to a stipulation that the fingerprints on several of the
prosecution’s exhibits–the Print Card, the Order to Show Cause, and the Warrant
of Deportation–all belonged to Defendant. After the stipulation, the prosecution
rested its case; Defendant’s counsel did not call Defendant or any other witnesses
to testify. The jury convicted Defendant of one count of illegal re-entry of a
deported alien in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.
Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are difficult to review on appeal
without the development of a record at the district court level. See Galloway , 56
F.3d at 1240. This case is not one of the exceptional cases in which the record is
sufficiently developed to dispose of the claims on appeal. Accordingly, we
dismiss Defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel without
prejudice to his right to raise the issue again in a collateral proceeding.
DISMISSED.
Entered for the Court,
Bobby R. Baldock
Circuit Judge
-2-