Free Mandate of 9th Circuit - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
l FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 05-10212 i
— D.C. No. CR—04—00358-DGC
Plaintiff - Appellee,
V.
JUDGMENT
LAWRENCE JACKSON,
Defendant — Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona U
(Phoenix). - ·
This cause came on to be heard on the Transcript of the Record from the
United States District Court for the District of Arizona (Phoenix) and was duly
submitted.
On consideration whereof] it is now here ordered and adjudged by this
Court, that the judgment of the said District Court in this cause be, and hereby is
AFFIRMED.
Filed and entered 04/ 12/06
é.·l}‘?·»“<»EA‘?<%’Ei‘%ERSON ·
Clerk of Court
Arrest
` JUN I1? 2005 if
Case 2:04-cr—OO358-DGC Document 131 Filed 06/O7/2006 Page 1 of 4

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES couar or APPEALS LE D
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ApR 12 gggg
. CATHY A. CATTERSON creek
us. counr os APPEALS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 05-10212
Plaintiff- Appellee, D.C. No. CR-04-00358-DGC
V.
S MEMORANDUM*
LAWRENCE JACKSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
I Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
David G. Campbell, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted April 3, 2006
San Francisco, California `
Before: NOONAN and BYBEE, Circuit Judges, and SCHWARZERM, District J
Judge.
The facts of this case are known to the parties.
` Jackson challenges the jury’s guilty verdict on the ground that the evidence
presented by the government was insufficient to convict him as a matter of law.
F" This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be
cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
""' The Honorable William W Schwarzer, Senior United States District
Judge for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation. _
Case 2:04-cr—OO358-DGC Document 131 Filed 06/O7/2006 Page 2 of 4

At trial, the government introduced testimony from multiple witnesses, each of
which stated that Jackson had participated and taken the lead in the murder of
Victor Villareal, as well as in the attempted cover-up. The government also
introduced physical evidence that corroborated these witnesses’ testimony in
important ways. "[V]iewin th[is] evidence in the light most favorable to the
prosecutiori," United States v. Lynch, 437 F .3d 902, 915 (9th Cir. 2006), and
drawing all reasonable inferences in favor ofthe government, see United States v.
Ltibrtida-Bustamante, 428 F.3d 1252, 1260 (9th Cir. 2005), this evidence was
more than sufficient to establish J ackson’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
"Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are generally inappropriate on
direct appeal." United States v. Ross, 206 F.3d 896, 900 (9th Cir. 2000).
- lneffective assistance claims "may be reviewed on direct appeal in two instances:
l) when the record on appeal is sufficiently developed to permit review and
determination of the issue, or 2) when the legal representation is so inadequate that l
it obviously denies a defendant his Sixth Amendment right to counsel." United
States v. Robinson, 967 F.2d 287, 290 (9th Cir. 1992) (internal citations omitted).
Neither of these scenarios is presented here. The record establishes some
baseline facts about J ackson’s attorney Rood’s efforts, but it is not sufficiently
developed to answer many questions about his actions. Nor does the record
. d 2 7 7 `
Case 2:04-cr-00358-DGC Document 131. Filed-06/O7/2006 Page 3 of 4

establish—or even suggest——that Rood’s performance was so inadequate as to
."obviously den[y Jackson] his Sixth Amendment right to counsel." Id. We
therefore decline to consider Jackson’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim.
U Lastly, Jackson asks for a remand under United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d
1073 (9th Cir. 2005). To receive a remand under Ameline, a defendant must
establish that his “substantial rights" have been affected by the district court
mistakenly sentencing him as if the advisory. sentencing guidelines were
mandatory. See id. at 1074-75; id. at 1078. Here, some of Jackson’s convictions ·
require a mandatory minimum sentence of life imprisonment. Consequently, any ·
other sentences that the district court imposed for Jackson’s other convictions
could not have affected his substantial rights, and Ameline does not apply.
AFFIRMED.
I 3
Case 2:04-cr—OO358-DGC Document 131 Filed 06/O7/2006 Page 4 of 4 l

Case 2:04-cr-00358-DGC

Document 131

Filed 06/07/2006

Page 1 of 4

Case 2:04-cr-00358-DGC

Document 131

Filed 06/07/2006

Page 2 of 4

Case 2:04-cr-00358-DGC

Document 131

Filed 06/07/2006

Page 3 of 4

Case 2:04-cr-00358-DGC

Document 131

Filed 06/07/2006

Page 4 of 4