Opinion ID: 305083
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: vivero's appeal.

Text: 7 Vivero raises but two alleged errors on this appeal-(a) ineffective representation by counsel at trial, and (b) improper receipt by the judge at time of sentence of oral information supplied by the United States Attorney. 8 We find no merit in either contention. It is clear from the record that the defendant Vivero was willing, and desired, to plead guilty to the charge against him. A review of the evidence introduced clearly demonstrates why. 1 Further, Vivero had, previous to trial, made a complete confession of his knowing participation. 9 Despite the odds against a successful defense, counsel for Vivero joined in Monje's pre-trial motions (a) to suppress the evidence, and (b) to compel production of the informant. [R.T., 6] After two pages of direct examination by the court of the government's witness on the motion to suppress, the record disclosed 55 pages of vigorous cross-examination by counsel for Monje, and no questions by counsel for Vivero (although there were several joint stipulations of counsel). Monje's counsel argued the two motions; Vivero's counsel did not. Both defendants, of course, waived a jury trial. Both defendants waived opening statements. Both defendants' counsel stipulated to the facts of the case, without waiving their rights under the motions made. [R.T., 100-103] Both defendants and their counsel stipulated to the same facts [R.T., 111], and to Monje's confession, after counsel for Vivero had had certain portions (involving possible Bruton problems) excised. [R.T., 113-115] After the government rested, neither defendant took the stand, nor presented any evidence. [R.T., 119] Neither defense counsel formally argued in defense of their clients, although they each discussed the evidence, chronologically, with the trial judge. Counsel for Vivero raised the question if the required intent to distribute existed, merely because of the evidence of the large amount of marijuana possessed. Counsel for Monje did not argue this point. (C.T., 126-127). 10 With the foregoing record before us, we cannot agree that the representation offered by counsel for Vivero to his client was such as to make the trial a farce, or a mockery of justice. Leano v. United States, 457 F.2d 1208 (9th Cir.1972); Vargas v. United States, 455 F.2d 501 (9th Cir.1972). 11 Although we do not approve the recommendations that Government counsel made to the court in response to the court's invitation at the time of sentencing [R.T., 141], we cannot say that there was reversible error in counsel's statements under the circumstances of this case. 12 The lower court's judgment as to Vivero is affirmed. 13