### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T Januar y 13, 2006 T HOM AS K. KAHN C L E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 10417 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 4 - 0 0 1 8 7 - CR- T- 2 6 - TBM U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s B R I A N K . V E L T R O P , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( Jan u ar y 13, 2006) B efo re B IR C H , B L A C K an d B A R K E T T , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: B r i a n K . V e l tr op appe a l s hi s c onvi c t i on f orpos s e s s i on a nd di s tr i but i on of2

m e tha m phe t a m i ne . W i thoutc ha l l e ngi ng a nyothe ra s pe c tof hi s tr i a l ors e nt e nc i ng, V e ltr o p p u r s u e s o n lyac la im f o rin e f f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f

c o u n s e l o n ap p e a l. B ec ause w e do n otgeneral l y e nt ert ai n i neff ec t i ve as si st ance cl ai m s thatar e a s s e rt e d f

o rth e f i r s tt i m e o n d i r e c tap p e a l , w e A F F I R M.

I . B AC KG RO UN D I n aone - da ytr i a l , V e l tr op w a s tr i e d a nd c onvi c t e d f ortw o c ount s of p o s s e s s i o n w i th i n t e n tt o d i s tr i b u t e me th a mp h e t a mi n e , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 2 1 U . S. C. § 841( a ) ( 1) a nd ( b) ( 1) ( C ) , a nd tw o c ount s of pos s e s s i on w i th i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e 50 gr a m s orm or e of

m e tha m phe t a m i ne , i n vi ol a t i on of 21 U . S . C . § 841( a ) ( 1) a nd (b)( 1)(B ). D uri ng the tri al , V el trop d i d n otre po rtt o the courthi s bel i ef thathe w as be i ng i ne f

f e c t i ve l yr e pr e s e nt e d. V e l tr op w a s s e nt e nc e d t o 121 m onths im p r is o n m e n t. O n ap p eal , V el tro p arg u es th ath i s tri al co u n sel ’ s p erfo rm an ce w as p er se i ne f f e c t i ve be c aus e he f

a i l e d t o s ubj e c tthe pr os e c ut i on’ s c a s e t o a nym e a ni ngf ul advers ar i al t es t i ng , gi vi ng on l y athree -m i nu t e openi ng st at em entw i tho uta theory of de f e ns e , pr e s e nt i ng no e vi de nc e , f a i l i ng t o m a ke am ot i on f orj udgm e ntof ac qu i tt al , and w ai vi ng cl osi ng ar gu m ent . H e argues thatthese fa ct ors c re at e a pr e s um pt i on of

i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e , r e qui r i ng no s how of pr e j udi c e . I n the3

a l t e rna t i ve , V e l tr op a r gue s tha the w a s de ni e d e f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of

c ouns e l a nd s uf f e r e d pr e j udi c e w he n hi s a tt orne ydi d notpr e s e ntade f e ns e , f a i l e d t o c ha l l e nge th e p ro secu t i o n ’ s case, an d d i d n o tad v o cat e fo r acq u i tt al o r red u ct i o n o f ch arg es.

I I . DI S CUS S I ON

“ T he l a w of

thi s C i r c ui ti s tha tc l a i m s of i na de qua t e r e pr e s e nt a t i on c a nnotbe det erm i ned o n d i re ctappeal w here such cl ai m s w er e notra i se d b ef ore the D i stri ct C ou rtand there has bee n n o o pp ortun i ty t o d evel op and i ncl ud e i n the re cord e vi de nc e be a r i ng on the m e r i t s of the a l l e ga t i ons . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. G r i f f i n, 699 F . 2d 1102, 1107 ( 11th C i r . 1983) ( quot i ng U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R odr i que z , 582 F . 2d 1 0 1 5 , 1 0 1 6 ( 5 th C ir . 1 9 7 8 ) . T h e S u p r e m e C o u rt h a s r e a s o n e d th a t: [ w ]h e n a n in e f

f e c tiv e - a s s is ta n c e c la im is b r o u g h t o n d ir e c t ap p e a l, appe l l a t e c ouns e l a nd the c ourtm us tpr oc e e d on atr i a l r e c or d not d e v e lo p e d p r e c is e lyf

o rth e o b je c t o f litig a tin g o rp r e s e rv in g th e c la im a nd thus of

t e n i nc om pl e t e ori na de qua t e f orthi s purpos e . . . . T he e vi de nc e i ntr oduc e d a ttr i a l . . . w i l l be de vot e d t o i s s ue s of gui l tor i nnoc e nc e , a nd the r e s ul t i ng r e c or d i n m a nyc a s e s w i l l notdi s c l os e the f a c t s ne c e s s a ryt o de c i de e i the rpr ong of the S tr i c kl a nd [ v. W ash i n g t o n , 4 6 6 U . S . 6 6 8 , 1 0 4 S . C t . 2 0 5 2 (1 9 8 4 )] an al ysi s. M a s s a r o v . U n ite d S ta te s , 5 3 8 U .S . 5 0 0 , 5 0 4

– 0 5 , 1 2 3 S . C t. 1 6 9 0 , 1 6 9 4 ( 2 0 0 3 ) . G e n e r a l l y , th e r e f

o r e , w e c o n s i d e rd i r e c tap p e a l s o f i n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e c l a i ms onl yw he n the di s tr i c tc ourtha s c ons i de r e d the c l a i m a nd de ve l ope d ar e c or d f orus t o revi ew . U ni t ed S t at es v. P er ez -T ost a, 36 F . 3d 15 52 , 15 63 (11th C i r. 19 94 ) ( “ It4

i s s e tt l e d l a w . . . tha tac l a i m of i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of

c ouns e l c a nnotbe consi dere d o n d i re ctappeal i f the cl ai m s w er e notfi rs tra i se d b ef ore the di stri ct c ourta nd i f

the r e ha s be e n no opportuni tyt o de ve l op ar e c or d of e vi de nc e r e l e va nt t o the m e r i t s of

the c l a i m . ” ) ; s e e , e . g. , U ni t e d S t a t e s v. T e a gue , 953 F . 2d 1525, 1534 n. 11 ( 11th C i r . 1992) ( “ [ T ] he di s tr i c tc ourthe l d a n e vi de nt i a ryhe a r i ng on [def endant ] ’ s m ot i on for new tri al , and w e [ had] the benefi tof thatcourt ’ s f ac tual fi nd i ng s i n thi s m att er . A tthathear i ng . . . bo th [defendant ] and h i s tri al coun se l t e s t i f i e d, ” a nd the r e f

or e , “ unde rthe s e c i r c um s t a nc e s , w e [ c hos e ] t o a ddr e s s the c l a i m f ori ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of

c ouns e l . ” ) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B a dol a t o, 701 F . 2d 91 5, 92 5 (11 th C i r. 19 83 ) ( addres si ng i neff ec t i ve as si st ance cl ai m w here there w as af u ll h e a r in g a n d ac o m p le te r e c o r d d e v e lo p e d in r e la tio n to th e d is tr ic t c o u rts de ni a l of the de f e nda nt s ’ m ot i ons f

orj udgm e ntnotw i ths t a ndi ng the ve r di c ta nd ne w tr i a l ) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. P hi l l i ps , 664 F . 2d 971, 1040 ( 5th C i r . 1981) ( r e vi e w i ng i ne f

f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e c l a i m w he n de f e nda nts ubm i tt e d al e tt e rt o the d is tr ic t c o u rt a f

te rh is c o n v ic tio n , b u t b e f o r e h is s e n te n c in g , c o m p la in in g ab o u t h is r e pr e s e nt a t i on, a nd c ouns e l r e s ponde d t o e a c h of the a l l e ga t i ons ) , s upe r s e de d on o th e rg r o u n d s , U n ite d S ta te s v . H u n tr e s s , 9 5 6 F .2 d 1 3 0 9 ( 5 th C ir .1 9 9 2 ) . I n s i tu a t i o n s wh e r e ar e c o r d wa s n o td e v e l o p e d i n th e d i s tr i c tc o u rt , we expectthatful l re l i ef

coul d b e obt ai ned throu gh the fe dera l habeas sy st em . S ee5

P er ez -T ost a, 36 F . 3d at15 63 (hol di ng thatan i neff ec t i ve as si st ance cl ai m “ i s m ore appr opr i a t e l yr a i s e d i n apr oc e e di ng unde r28 U . S . C . § 2255” ) . B e c aus e V e l tr op d idn o t b r in g h is c o n c e rn s ab o u t h is c o u n s e l to th e a tte n tio n o f th e c o u rt d u r in g h is tr ia l, th e r e c o r df

r o m h is tr ia l is in s u f

f ic ie n t f o ru s to r e v ie w o n d ir e c t ap p e a l.

I I I . CONCL US I ON V e ltr o p ap p e a ls h is c o n v ic tio n a r g u in g th a t h is c o u n s e l w a s c o n s titu tio n a lly i neff ec t i ve. B ec ause the re cord i n thi s c as e w as devel op ed w i th an eye t ow ar d co n v icti o n an d , th er ef

o re , d o es n o t sh ed li g h t o n th e s u ff icien cy o f h is co u n se l’ s a c tio n s . W e c o n c lu d e th a t V e ltr o p ’s c la im s a r e in ap p r o p r ia te f o rd ir e c t ap p e a l. AF F I RME D.