Opinion ID: 221841
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Trial Counsel's Alleged Ineffectiveness

Text: Finally, citing his trial counsel's failure to object to the aforementioned evidence and alleging that his trial counsel fell asleep during trial, Wells now urges that he is entitled to a new trial on the basis that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. `[G]enerally, ineffective assistance of counsel claims are better left for post-conviction proceedings.' United States v. Rice, 449 F.3d 887, 897 (8th Cir. 2006) (quoting United States v. Cook, 356 F.3d 913, 917 (8th Cir.2004)). Still, we routinely review ineffective-assistance claims on direct appeal where the record is fully developed because the district court held an evidentiary hearing at which it allowed [the defendant] to present evidence regarding the alleged ineffective assistance of counsel. Id. In Wells's case, no such record has been developed. Namely, Wells did not ask the district court to hold an evidentiary hearing on his trial counsel's alleged ineffectiveness, and, consequently, none was held. Thus, we decline review of Wells's ineffective-assistance claims at this time.