Court Opinion

ID: 2965140
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:35:57.7523+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:59.117026
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 96-2129

                                   RAMIRO RAMIREZ,

                                Petitioner, Appellant,

                                          v.

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                Respondent, Appellee.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

                    [Hon. Ernest C. Torres, U.S. District Judge], 
                                            ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                 Selya, Circuit Judge,
                                        _____________
                              Cyr, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                   ____________________
                              and Boudin, Circuit Judge.
                                          _____________

                                 ____________________

            Ramiro Ramirez on brief pro se.
            ______________
            Sheldon Whitehouse,  United  States Attorney,  Margaret E.  Curran
            __________________                             ___________________
        and Kenneth P. Madden, Assistant United States Attorneys, on brief for
            _________________
        appellee.

                                 ___________________

                                   February 5, 1998

                                 ____________________

                 Per Curiam.   Upon careful review of the  briefs and the
                 __________

            record, we conclude  that our opinion in  petitioner's direct

            appeal, United States v. Tabares, 951 F.2d 405, 409 (1st Cir.
                    _____________    _______

            1991),  did not  adjudicate  petitioner's specific  claim  of

            ineffective  assistance  of  counsel,  namely  that,  without

            petitioner's  consent,  during  closing  argument, his  trial

            attorney  conceded petitioner's guilt to weapons counts.  Our

            prior opinion expressly  refrained from ruling on  any "claim

            that involves matters outside the trial record itself," which

            would include the specific ineffective assistance  of counsel

            claim  that  petitioner  now  raises,  and  particularly  the

            factual  question   whether  petitioner   consented  to   the

            concession of guilt.  Accordingly, that claim should not have

            been dismissed  as "a matter  raised and  properly denied  on

            direct  appeal."  Of course,  we intend no comment whatsoever

            on the merit, if any, of the claim, but only conclude that it

            was dismissed prematurely.

                 We note from the appellate record that there may be some

            dispute about  the signatures  on petitioner's  filings.   In

            these  circumstances,  we  cannot  say  that  an  evidentiary

            hearing necessarily will be required.  We leave that question

            of procedure  to the district  court, upon its review  of the

            papers before it  and its determination whether  a sufficient

            disputed factual issue has been  joined.  See David v. United
                                                      ___ _____    ______

            States, No.  97-1398, 1998 WL  21848, at *6-7 (1st  Cir. Jan.
            ______

                                         -2-

            27, 1998), quoting United States v. McGill, 11 F.3d 223, 225-
                       _______ _____________    ______

            26 (1st Cir. 1993).

                 The judgment of  dismissal is vacated,  and the case  is
                                               _______

            remanded  to  the  district  court  for  further  proceedings
            ________

            consistent with this opinion.

                                         -3-