United States v. Armando Granillo
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Armando Granillo appeals his convictions for honest services fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 , 1346. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm in part and dismiss in part.
First, Granillo asserts that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to subpoena a witness and then, when he learned a week and a half before trial that the witness would be unavailable, in failing to move for a continuance of the trial. However, we generally do not review ineffective assistance of counsel claims on direct appeal. United States v. McKenna, 327 F.3d 830, 845 (9th Cir.2003). Only in two exceptional circumstances — “in the unusual cases (1) where the record on appeal is sufficiently developed to permit determination of the issue, or (2) where the legal representation is so inadequate that it obviously denies a defendant his Sixth Amendment right to counsel” — will we review such a claim on direct appeal. United States v. Jeronimo, 398 F.3d 1149, 1156 (9th Cir.2005) (internal citations omitted), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Castillo, 496 F.3d 947, 957 (9th Cir.2007) (en banc). This case presents neither of those exceptional circumstances.…