United States v. Martinez, 73-2239.
| Decision Date | 30 November 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 73-2239.,73-2239. |
| Citation | 488 F.2d 1088 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Joseph Henry MARTINEZ, Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Kenneth Stahl, San Francisco, Cal., for appellant.
John Cooney, Asst. U. S. Atty., San Francisco, Cal., for appellee.
Before ELY and WRIGHT, Circuit Judges, and JAMESON,* District Judge.
In a jury trial, Martinez was convicted on all charges of a five-count indictment. The first two counts alleged the distribution of heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). The third count charged the unlawful use of a communication system in facilitating the distribution of the drug in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 843(b). Count 4 charged possession of heroin with intent to distribute it in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and the fifth count alleged that Martinez had unlawfully conspired to distribute heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. The district judge sentenced Martinez to a term of ten years imprisonment on each of the five counts, providing, however, that the sentences should be served concurrently. From the judgments of conviction, Martinez appeals.
The first two arguments that Martinez here presents are related. He first contends that he claimed entrapment as a defense and that the Government failed to establish the lack of entrapment because it did not prove that Martinez had previously been convicted of, or had previously committed, acts similar to those for which he was being tried. This argument is specious, inasmuch as one may be predisposed to commit his first crime as much as, if not more than, a chronic offender who, theoretically, should be more fearful of the consequences. Martinez' second argument is that the district judge's entrapment instruction was erroneous because it did not embrace the theory here advanced by Martinez in his first argument. As to this, we have above held that the first argument has no merit. Moreover, the defense interposed no objection to the court's instruction in respect to entrapment, and there is certainly nothing therein which could properly be held to constitute plain error.
Martinez' third contention is that he did not receive the effective assistance of trial counsel. This argument is based upon Martinez' assertion that his trial counsel failed to employ legal means of discovery so as to ascertain the name and address of the person claimed to have entrapped Martinez and failed to ascertain whether that person...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Fadel, 87-2105
...as much as, if not more than, a chronic offender, who theoretically should be more fearful of the consequences. United States v. Martinez, 488 F.2d 1088, 1089 (9th Cir.1973).10 In reversing the district court, we are in no way condoning the conduct of government counsel at the hearings on M......
-
U.S. v. Gordon
...acts because one may be predisposed to commit his first crime as much, if not more than, a chronic offender. See United States v. Martinez, 488 F.2d 1088, 1089 (9th Cir.1973). Second, Edler testified that Loeswick and Edler discussed the grand jury investigation twice before Edler became a ......
-
U.S. v. DeBright, 81-1648
...v. United States, 413 F.2d 596, 605 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 917, 90 S.Ct. 239, 24 L.Ed.2d 917 (1969); United States v. Martinez, 488 F.2d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir.1973); United States v. Valenzuela, 596 F.2d 824, 829 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 441 U.S. 965, 99 S.Ct. 2415, 60 L.Ed.2d 10......
-
U.S. v. Reynoso-Ulloa
...as much as, if not more than, a chronic offender who, theoretically, should be more fearful of the consequences." United States v. Martinez, 488 F.2d 1088, 1089 (9 Cir. 1973).10 However, this fact alone in no way indicates entrapment, since mere solicitation is not enough to show entrapment......