Opinion ID: 170091
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Consideration of an Ineffective-Assistance Claim on Direct Appeal

Text: Mr. Hamilton's appeal of the District Court's denial of his motion is largely based on his allegation that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Ineffective-assistance claims should generally be brought in collateral proceedings, rather than on direct appeal, so that a factual record enabling effective appellate review may be developed in the district court. United States v. Galloway, 56 F.3d 1239, 1242 (10th Cir.1995) (en banc); see also Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500, 504-05, 123 S.Ct. 1690, 155 L.Ed.2d 714 (2003) (When an ineffective-assistance claim is brought on direct appeal, appellate counsel and the court must proceed on a trial record not developed precisely for the object of litigating or preserving the claim and thus often incomplete or inadequate for this purpose.). Here, however, a factual record enabling appellate review already exists; the District Court held a lengthy hearing on the matter. Because Mr. Hamilton's ineffective-assistance claim is fully developed in the record, it falls within the narrow exception to our general rule that such claims will be dismissed when brought on direct appeal. See Galloway, 56 F.3d at 1242 (Some rare claims which are fully developed in the record may be brought either on direct appeal or in collateral proceedings.); see also United States v. Carr, 80 F.3d 413, 416 n. 3 (10th Cir.1996) (considering ineffective-assistance allegation on direct appeal because a factual record had been fully developed in the district court). We will therefore review the District Court's denial of Mr. Hamilton's motion.