Perry
United States v. Perry
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM *
Keith O’Neil Perry (“Perry”), a physician, appeals his conviction in the Central *483 District of California on thirty-nine counts of mail fraud, wire fraud, defrauding a bankruptcy receivership, and making false statements. He contends that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel because of two conflicts of interest involving his trial lawyer, Anthony Brooklier, and because his successive lawyers failed to challenge his indictment based on the Speedy Trial Act. He also claims that there is insufficient evidence to support his convictions.
Exercising jurisdiction over this appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , we affirm the judgment of the district court. We do not recite the factual background and procedural history of the case except as necessary, because they are known to the parties.
1. Conflicts of Interest
Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are generally inappropriate on direct review, but may be reviewed where, as here, the record on appeal is sufficiently developed to permit determination of the issue. United States v. Ross, 206 F.3d 896, 900 (9th Cir.2000). The Sixth Amendment right to counsel includes a correlative right to representation…