United States v. Brian K. Veltrop , 161 F. App'x 914 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                                                          [DO NOT PUBLISH]
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    FILED
    ________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    January 13, 2006
    No. 05-10417
    THOMAS K. KAHN
    Non-Argument Calendar                CLERK
    ________________________
    D. C. Docket No. 04-00187-CR-T-26-TBM
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    versus
    BRIAN K. VELTROP,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    ________________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Middle District of Florida
    _________________________
    (January 13, 2006)
    Before BIRCH, BLACK and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:
    Brian K. Veltrop appeals his conviction for possession and distribution of
    methamphetamine. Without challenging any other aspect of his trial or sentencing,
    Veltrop pursues only a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel on appeal.
    Because we do not generally entertain ineffective assistance claims that are
    asserted for the first time on direct appeal, we AFFIRM.
    I. BACKGROUND
    In a one-day trial, Veltrop was tried and convicted for two counts of
    possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 
    21 U.S.C. § 841
    (a)(1) and (b)(1)(C), and two counts of possession with intent to distribute 50
    grams or more of methamphetamine, in violation of 
    21 U.S.C. § 841
    (a)(1) and
    (b)(1)(B). During the trial, Veltrop did not report to the court his belief that he was
    being ineffectively represented. Veltrop was sentenced to 121 months
    imprisonment.
    On appeal, Veltrop argues that his trial counsel’s performance was per se
    ineffective because he failed to subject the prosecution’s case to any meaningful
    adversarial testing, giving only a three-minute opening statement without a theory
    of defense, presenting no evidence, failing to make a motion for judgment of
    acquittal, and waiving closing argument. He argues that these factors create a
    presumption of ineffective assistance, requiring no show of prejudice. In the
    2
    alternative, Veltrop argues that he was denied effective assistance of counsel and
    suffered prejudice when his attorney did not present a defense, failed to challenge
    the prosecution’s case, and did not advocate for acquittal or reduction of charges.
    II. DISCUSSION
    “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.” United States v. Griffin, 
    699 F.2d 1102
    , 1107 (11th Cir. 1983) (quoting United States v. Rodriquez, 
    582 F.2d 1015
    , 1016 (5th Cir. 1978). The Supreme Court has reasoned that:
    [w]hen an ineffective-assistance claim is brought on direct appeal,
    appellate counsel and the court must proceed on a trial record not
    developed precisely for the object of litigating or preserving the claim
    and thus often incomplete or inadequate for this purpose. . . . The
    evidence introduced at trial . . . will be devoted to issues of guilt or
    innocence, and the resulting record in many cases will not disclose the
    facts necessary to decide either prong of the Strickland [v.
    Washington, 
    466 U.S. 668
    , 
    104 S. Ct. 2052
     (1984)] analysis.
    Massaro v. United States, 
    538 U.S. 500
    , 504–05, 
    123 S. Ct. 1690
    , 1694 (2003).
    Generally, therefore, we consider direct appeals of ineffective assistance claims
    only when the district court has considered the claim and developed a record for us
    to review. United States v. Perez-Tosta, 
    36 F.3d 1552
    , 1563 (11th Cir. 1994) (“It
    3
    is settled law . . . that a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel cannot be
    considered on direct appeal if the claims were not first raised before the district
    court and if there has been no opportunity to develop a record of evidence relevant
    to the merits of the claim.”); see, e.g., United States v. Teague, 
    953 F.2d 1525
    ,
    1534 n.11 (11th Cir. 1992) (“[T]he district court held an evidentiary hearing on
    [defendant]’s motion for new trial, and we [had] the benefit of that court’s factual
    findings in this matter. At that hearing . . . both [defendant] and his trial counsel
    testified,” and therefore, “under these circumstances, we [chose] to address the
    claim for ineffective assistance of counsel.”); United States v. Badolato, 
    701 F.2d 915
    , 925 (11th Cir. 1983) (addressing ineffective assistance claim where there was
    a full hearing and a complete record developed in relation to the district courts
    denial of the defendants’ motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and
    new trial); United States v. Phillips, 
    664 F.2d 971
    , 1040 (5th Cir. 1981)
    (reviewing ineffective assistance claim when defendant submitted a letter to the
    district court after his conviction, but before his sentencing, complaining about his
    representation, and counsel responded to each of the allegations), superseded on
    other grounds, United States v. Huntress, 
    956 F.2d 1309
     (5th Cir.1992).
    In situations where a record was not developed in the district court, we
    expect that full relief could be obtained through the federal habeas system. See
    4
    Perez-Tosta, 
    36 F.3d at 1563
     (holding that an ineffective assistance claim “is more
    appropriately raised in a proceeding under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
    ”). Because Veltrop
    did not bring his concerns about his counsel to the attention of the court during his
    trial, the record from his trial is insufficient for us to review on direct appeal.
    III. CONCLUSION
    Veltrop appeals his conviction arguing that his counsel was constitutionally
    ineffective. Because the record in this case was developed with an eye toward
    conviction and, therefore, does not shed light on the sufficiency of his counsel’s
    actions. We conclude that Veltrop’s claims are inappropriate for direct appeal.
    AFFIRMED.
    5