United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Carlos Barajas-sanchez, Defendant-appellant, 19 F.3d 1441 (9th Cir. 1994)
Annotate this CaseBefore: FLETCHER, BRUNETTI, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM**
Carlos Barajas-Sanchez appeals his conviction, following a jury trial, for possession with intent to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (1). Barajas-Sanchez argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel failed to file a motion to suppress the cocaine seized at an airport security checkpoint. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
"As a general rule, we will not review challenges to the effectiveness of defense counsel on direct appeal. Such an issue is more appropriately reserved for habeas corpus proceedings, where facts outside the record, but necessary to the disposition of the claim, may be fully developed." United States v. Laughlin, 933 F.2d 786, 788 (9th Cir. 1991) (citations omitted).
Such is the case here. Trial counsel has had no opportunity to explain his decision not to file a motion to suppress evidence. Therefore, we decline to address Barajas-Sanchez's argument on direct appeal. See id. at 789.
AFFIRMED.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.