Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. JAVIER LUJAN GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant
Javier Lujan Garcia pleaded guilty to one count of being found in the United States following deportation. The district court implicitly denied Lujan Garcia's request for a downward variance and sentenced him within the advisory guidelines range to 41 months in prison, to be followed by a three-year term of nonreporting supervised release. Lujan Garcia argues on appeal that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to argue at sentencing the points that were raised in the defense sentencing memorandum, failing to request specific relief, and failing to object on the record at sentencing to preserve Lujan Garcia's appellate arguments. In addition, Lujan Garcia complains that his trial counsel's failure to specify how double counting his criminal history affected the sentence imposed constituted ineffective assistance and that combining the double counting argument with Lujan Garcia's family situation made the request for a downward variance unclear.
This court generally does not review claims of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal. United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014). We have “undertaken to resolve claims of inadequate representation on direct appeal only in rare cases where the record allowed us to evaluate fairly the merits of the claim.” United States v. Higdon, 832 F.2d 312, 314 (5th Cir. 1987). In most instances, we qualify a claim as a “rare case” warranting review only when it was raised and developed in a post-trial motion to the district court. United States v. Stevens, 487 F.3d 232, 245 (5th Cir. 2007). Lujan Garcia did not raise these ineffective assistance claims in the district court at any time. Because the record is not sufficiently developed to allow for a fair consideration of these claims, we decline to consider them on direct appeal without prejudice to Lujan Garcia's right to raise them on collateral review. See Isgar, 739 F.3d at 841. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
PER CURIAM:*
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 15-50918
Decided: July 15, 2016
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)