United States v. Harrison ( 2000 )


Menu:
  •                           UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,              
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.                              No. 00-4202
    DWAYNE ADAIR HARRISON,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News.
    Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District Judge.
    (CR-96-45)
    Submitted: November 30, 2000
    Decided: December 8, 2000
    Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    COUNSEL
    James S. Ellenson, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellant. Helen F.
    Fahey, United States Attorney, Timothy R. Murphy, Special Assistant
    United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
    Local Rule 36(c).
    2                     UNITED STATES v. HARRISON
    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:
    Dwayne Adair Harrison appeals the criminal judgment convicting
    him of possession with intent to distribute cocaine in violation of 
    21 U.S.C.A. § 841
    (a)(1) (West 1999) and sentencing him to a term of
    imprisonment of 150 months. On appeal, Harrison alleges that his
    counsel was ineffective for 1) allowing Harrison to waive a jury trial,
    2) failing to file a suppression motion, 3) failing to object to the Gov-
    ernment’s expert testifying to the ultimate issue in the case, 4) failing
    to call an expert to oppose the testimony of the Government’s expert,
    5) failing to put on defense evidence, and 6) failing to object to the
    pre-sentence investigation report.
    Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are generally not cogni-
    zable on direct appeal. United States v. King, 
    119 F.3d 290
    , 295 (4th
    Cir. 1997). Rather, to allow for adequate development of the record,
    a defendant must bring his claim in a motion under 
    28 U.S.C.A. § 2255
     (West Supp. 2000). Id.; United States v. Hoyle, 
    33 F.3d 415
    ,
    418 (4th Cir. 1994). An exception exists when the record conclusively
    establishes ineffective assistance. King, 
    119 F.3d at 295
    . To establish
    a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a prisoner must show
    that: (1) counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of
    reasonableness; and (2) there is a reasonable probability that he was
    prejudiced by counsel’s unprofessional errors. Strickland v. Washing-
    ton, 
    466 U.S. 668
    , 688, 694 (1984). Harrison has failed to establish
    that counsel’s ineffectiveness conclusively appears on the face of the
    record with regard to his claims. We therefore affirm the judgment.
    We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-
    tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
    argument would not aid the decisional process.
    AFFIRMED