Lucero v. United States, 7758.
| Decision Date | 26 August 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 7758.,7758. |
| Citation | 335 F.2d 912 |
| Parties | Antonio Esquibil LUCERO, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
John F. Hiatt, Littleton, Colo., for appellant.
John A. Babington, Asst. U. S. Atty. (John Quinn, U. S. Atty., on the brief), for appellee.
Before LEWIS, BREITENSTEIN and SETH, Circuit Judges.
Appellant was indicted within the District of New Mexico in two counts alleging violations of statutory prohibitions against trafficking in narcotics. 21 U.S. C. § 174; 26 U.S.C. § 4705(a). Before pleading to the indictment appellant requested that counsel be appointed to assist him and the court appointed Mr. Joe A. Duran of the New Mexico Bar in that capacity. After entering pleas of not guilty to the charges, appellant in due time proceeded to trial before a jury, which trial resulted in verdicts of guilty upon each count. From the judgments of conviction entered he now appeals, contending that (a) he did not receive the effective assistance of counsel in fact and (b) he did not receive the assistance of competent counsel as a matter of law because Mr. Duran was then engaged as a Special Assistant Attorney General of New Mexico.
A careful review of the record clearly indicates that, in fact, Mr. Duran's representation of appellant, both in pretrial proceedings and during the trial, was entirely adequate and professionally competent. We find no merit in appellant's contention that he was denied his constitutional right in such regard. Effective representation does not guarantee a subjectively satisfactory result for those accused of crime. Frand v. United States, 10 Cir., 301 F.2d 102; Criser v. United States, 10 Cir., 319 F.2d 849; Hester v. United States, 10 Cir., 303 F.2d 47, cert. den., 371 U.S. 847, 83 S.Ct. 80, 9 L.Ed.2d 82.
Appellant's second contention is more troublesome. At the time of Mr. Duran's appointment as appellant's trial counsel the court was not aware that Mr. Duran was, by contract, rendering part-time legal service to the New Mexico State Planning Office and held the title of Special Assistant Attorney General. Nor was Mr. Duran aware of Rule 3(g) of the Rules for the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico, which provides:
"Neither the Attorney General of the State of New Mexico, nor any of his assistants; no District Attorney in the State of New Mexico or any of his assistants, nor any United States Commissioner, shall appear in this court and defend any person charged with an offense against the laws of the United States."
And appellant was aware of neither the rule nor Mr. Duran's service to the State of New Mexico. It was only after a motion for new trial had been denied and appellant had been sentenced that the court learned of Mr. Duran's official state service. The Court then promptly and properly, upon its own motion, conducted a hearing upon the matter,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hudman
...of the record furnishes ample support for this finding. State v. Burrell, 120 N.J.L. 277, 199 A. 18. Compare Lucero v. United States, 335 F.2d 912 (10th Cir. 1964). The third point relied upon for reversal is that the reception into evidence of the defendant's plea of guilty when arraigned ......
-
Silva v. Cox, 8139.
...of due process, nor has appellant suffered any prejudice by reason of the admitted procedural defects. Affirmed. 1 Lucero v. United States, 10 Cir., 335 F. 2d 912, and the cases cited therein on this point. 2 Goforth v. United States, 10 Cir., 314 F.2d 868, cert. denied, 374 U.S. 812, 83 S.......
-
Tafoya v. United States
..."Effective representation does not guarantee a subjectively satisfactory result for those accused of crime." Lucero v. United States, 335 F.2d 912, 913 (10th Cir. 1964). "In every case a lawyer loses, it is possible, in retrospect, to say that some different strategy or procedure might have......
-
McConnell v. Patterson, Civ. A. No. 66-C-86.
...not satisfactory to petitioner is not the correct test. See Goforth v. United States, 10 Cir. 1963, 314 F.2d 868 and Lucero v. United States, 10 Cir. 1964, 335 F.2d 912. The rule to show cause is discharged and the petition is denied as being without It is so ordered. ...