Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-95-04095/USCOURTS-ca10-95-04095-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Manuel Munoz Avelar
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

PUBLISH 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Cir(uit 

APR -11996 

PATRICK FISHER 

Clerk 

v. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 95-4095 

MANUEL MUNOZ AVELAR, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH 

(D.C. No. 93-CR-63) 

Bruce C. Lubeck (Scott M. Matheson, Jr., United States Attorney 

with him on the brief), Assistant United States Attorney, Salt 

Lake City, Utah, for appellee. 

Brett J. Delporto (Gregory G. Skordas with him on the briefs) of 

Watkiss, Dunning & Watkiss, Salt Lake City, 8tah, for appellant. 

Before ANDERSON, BARRETT, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. 

BARRETT, Senior Circuit Judge. 

Appellate Case: 95-4095 Document: 01019277285 Date Filed: 04/01/1996 Page: 1 
Manuel Munoz Avelar (Avelar) appeals his conviction for 

possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 

U.S.C. § 841(a) (1), and possession of a firearm during a drug 

trafficking offense, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). 

On August 25, 1993, Avelar and two co-defendants were arrested 

as part of a "buy-bust" set up by the Ogden, Utah, police 

department and a confidential informant in which six kilograms of 

cocaine was seized .. Avelar was released from custody on conditions 

on August 30, 1993. On September 7, 1993, Avelar failed to appear 

for his preliminary examination and, thereafter, his appointed 

counsel withdrew. 

On September 8, 1993, an indictment was returned charging 

Avelar under Count I with possession of cocaine with intent to 

distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (1), and under Count 

II with possession of a firearm during a drug trafficking offense, 

in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). Avelar was eventually arrested 

in October, 1994, and, thereafter, he retained Earl Xaiz (Xaiz) as 

counsel. 

On December 22, 1994, Avelar met with Detective Michael 

Ashment (Detective Ashment) . The meeting was arranged by Xaiz, 

supposedly at Avelar's request, in an attempt to negotiate a plea 

-2-

Appellate Case: 95-4095 Document: 01019277285 Date Filed: 04/01/1996 Page: 2 
agreement whereby Avelar would cooperate with authorities in 

exchange for a downward departure in sentencing under U.S.S.G. § 

5K1.1. Xaiz did not accompany Avelar to the meeting. There was 

apparently confusion about the function and purpose of the meeting 

in that Avelar allegedly believed that Detective Ashment had the 

authority to reduce or eliminate his prison time and, based on this 

erroneous belief, Avelar allegedly "wildly exaggerated his role in 

the cocaine deal" by telling Detective Ashment that he and Raul 

Rueda had traveled to California to set up the drug deal. Avelar 

contends that he terminated the interview when he discovered that 

Detective Ashment did not have the authority to reduce or eliminate 

his prison time. 

Avelar's relationship with Xaiz apparently disintegrated after 

Avelar's meeting with Detective Ashment. New counsel was appointed 

in February, 1995. 

On April 4, 1995, Avelar was convicted of both counts 

following a two-day jury trial. Thereafter, Avelar filed a motion 

for a new trial based in part on Xaiz's failure to accompany him to 

the December 22, 1994, meeting. The district court denied the 

motion on May 1, 1995. On June 14, 1995, Avelar was sentenced to 

consecutive terms of 120 months imprisonment on Count I and 60 

months imprisonment on Count II. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 95-4095 Document: 01019277285 Date Filed: 04/01/1996 Page: 3 
On appeal, Avelar contends that he was denied effective 

assistance of counsel in violation of his Sixth Amendment right 

when Xaiz failed to accompany him to the December 22, 1994, meeting 

with Detective Ashment. Avelar argues that he was without 

representation at a critical phase of the case against him and that 

this effectively denied him his right to testify on his own behalf 

at trial. 

Based on our reasoning in United States v. Galloway, 56 F.3d 

1239 (lOth Cir. 1995) (en bane), we hold that Avelar's ineffective 

assistance of counsel claim should be brought on collateral review. 

In Galloway, we reaffirmed and reemphasized that "[i] neffecti ve 

assistance of counsel claims should be brought in collateral 

proceedings, not on direct appeal" and that "[s]uch claims brought 

on direct appeal are presumptively dismissible, and virtually all 

will be dismissed." .Id. at 1240. See also United States v. 

McKneely, 69 F.3d 1067, 1079-80 (lOth Cir. 1995) (ineffectiveness 

claim brought on direct appeal dismissed without prejudice); United 

States v. Kennedy, 64 F.3d 1465, 1474-75 (lOth Cir. 1995) 

(ineffectiveness claim brought on direct appeal dismissed without 

prejudice based on Galloway) . 

For adequate review of an appellant's ineffective assistance 

of counsel claim, a factual record must be developed in and 

-4-

Appellate Case: 95-4095 Document: 01019277285 Date Filed: 04/01/1996 Page: 4 
addressed by the district court. Galloway, 56 F.3d at 1240. "Even 

if evidence is not necessary, at the very least counsel accused of 

deficient performance can explain their reasoning and actions, and 

the district court can render its opinion on the merits of the 

claim." Id. 

While we noted in Galloway that "in rare instances an 

ineffectiveness of counsel claim may need no further development 

prior to review on direct appeal," .lil, this is not one of those 

exceptional cases. Avelar's argument, which centers on Xaiz's 

failure to accompany him to the meeting with Detective Ashment, 

requires precisely the type of factual determinations contemplated 

by Galloway, which are beyond the scope of the record on direct 

appeal, i.e., Xaiz's reason(s) for arranging the meeting; Xaiz's 

reason(s) for not accompanying Avelar, and Avelar's actual 

knowledge regarding the purpose of the meeting and Detective 

Ashment's authority. 

Accordingly, we dismiss Avelar's claim of ineffective 

assistance of counsel without prejudice to his right to raise the 

issue again in a collateral proceeding. 

DISMISSED. 

-5-

Appellate Case: 95-4095 Document: 01019277285 Date Filed: 04/01/1996 Page: 5