Case ID: f-appx_644/html/0324-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Raymundo Jose PINA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-50792
    Summary Calendar,
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    March 28, 2016.
    Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    John Andrew Kuchera, Waco, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    
      Before DAVIS, JONES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Raymundo Jose Pina' appeals after pleading guilty and being sentenced for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine. He contends that plea counsel was ineffective for failing to assert that his right to a speedy trial'was violated by the passage of years between indictment and arrest.

Generally, we do not review claims of' ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal. United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir.2014). Typically, such a claim warrants review on .direct appeal only when it was raised and developed in a post-trial motion to the district court. United States v. Stevens, 487 F.3d 232, 245 (5th Cir.2007). Pina did not raise his claim in the district court. Here, he argues about the underlying speedy trial claim and then concludes simply that counsel was ineffective for failing to raise it. Counsel has not been invited to address the speedy trial issue or the claim of ineffectiveness. Accordingly, the record is not sufficiently developed to allow for fair consideration of this claim, and we decline to consider it now, without prejudice to Pina’s right to raise it on collateral review. See Isgar, 739 F.3d at 841. The judgment is AFFIRMED. Pina’s motion to supplement the record on appeal is DENIED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has’ determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.