United States v. Arnold Luna

MEMORANDUM

Arnold Luna (“Luna”) appeals his conviction for distributing methamphetamine within 1000 feet of a community college in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 (a)(1) and 860(a). We affirm.

1. The district court did not violate Luna’s constitutional right to testify in his own defense. A criminal defendant can waive his right to testify at trial, so long as the waiver is knowing and voluntary. Unites States v. Pino-Noriega, 189 F.3d 1089, 1094 (9th Cir.1999). The district judge informed Luna of his right to testify, and asked Luna if he was giving up that right. Luna responded yes, and did not otherwise tell the district court he wanted to testify. This was an effective waiver.

2. We cannot review Luna’s claims that his trial counsel was ineffective because he raises them on direct appeal. See United States v. McKenna, 327 F.3d 830, 845 (9th Cir.2003). There are two exceptions to this rule: where the record is adequately developed, and where counsel’s performance is so obviously inadequate as to violate the Sixth Amendment. Id. Neither exception is met here.

3. The district court did not abuse its discretion when it refused to grant Luna’s motion to substitute counsel on the…