United States v. Alejandro Prieto ( 2012 )

Case: 12-40812 Document: 00512087751 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/18/2012
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
December 18, 2012
No. 12-40812
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
ALEJANDRO CASILLAS PRIETO, also known as Alex,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:10-CR-169-1
Before SMITH, PRADO, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Alejandro Casillas Prieto appeals from his jury verdict conviction and life
sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to manufacture and distribute 500
grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of
methamphetamine and/or 50 grams or more of methamphetamine (actual). His
sole argument on appeal is that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance
by failing to properly advise him regarding his lower sentencing exposure had
he pleaded guilty. Casillas Prieto contends that, with the proper advice, he
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
Case: 12-40812 Document: 00512087751 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/18/2012
No. 12-40812
would not have rejected the Government’s plea offer and would have received a
lesser sentence than ultimately imposed. The Government moves for summary
affirmance or, alternatively, for an extension of time in which to file its brief.
As a general rule, this court will not consider a claim of ineffective
assistance of counsel that was not raised in district court. United States v.
Miller, 406 F.3d 323, 335-36 (5th Cir. 2005). Moreover, the Supreme Court has
emphasized that a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion is the preferred method for raising
a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S.
500, 504 (2003). As the record for this case is not sufficiently developed to
qualify for an exception to that general rule, we decline to consider Casillas
Prieto’s ineffective assistance claim in this appeal without prejudice to his ability
to raise this claim in a § 2255 motion. See United States v. Higdon, 832 F.2d
312, 314 (5th Cir. 1987).
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The
Government’s motion for summary affirmance is DENIED. Because no further
briefing is required, the Government’s alternative motion for an extension of
time to file a brief is DENIED.
2