Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

United States v. Philip Michael Memoli

449 F.2d 160

Type: Opinion
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: Federal
Date: 1971-09-28
Topic: general

PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from a conviction and sentence for interstate transportation of a stolen car, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §2312. We affirm. The appellant claims that misstatements by the prosecutor during opening and closing arguments deprived him of a fair trial. No objection was made to the statements. No instruction was requested and none given that arguments of counsel are not evidence.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed United States v. Philip Michael Memoli. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Authority status: pending
Cited by: 6 opinions

UNITED STATES v. MEMOLI,449 F.2d 160(9th Cir. 1971)

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Philip Michael MEMOLI,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 25641.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

September 28, 1971.

David K. Yamakawa, Jr., San Francisco, Cal., for defendant-appellant.

Robert L. Meyer, U.S. Atty., David R. Nissen, Chief, Crim. Div., Kenneth P. Snoke, Asst. U.S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before CHAMBERS, CARTER and WRIGHT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from a conviction and sentence for interstate transportation of a stolen car, in violation of18 U.S.C. § 2312. We affirm.

The appellant claims that misstatements by the prosecutor during opening and closing arguments deprived him of a fair trial. No objection was made to the statements. No instruction was requested and none given that arguments of counsel are not evidence. Not all misstatements require a reversal of a conviction. Mares v. United States (10 Cir. 1968)409 F.2d 1083, 1085. And, in the absence of an objection plain error must appear. Leonard v. United States (9 Cir. 1960)277 F.2d 834, 841.

We have examined the record and the claimed prejudice is clearly not plain error, but assuming an objection was made, the claims of prejudice are clearly insubstantial.See generally,Frazier v. Cupp,394 U.S. 731, 89 S.Ct. 1420, 22 L.Ed.2d 684 (1969).

Likewise, the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, notwithstanding appellate counsel's description of trial counsel's efforts, is clearly withoutPage 161merit. Appellant did not object to his representation below. Our review of the record does not disclose representation so inadequate that the trial court's failure to notice it was plain error. United States v. Sullivan (9 Cir. 1970)435 F.2d 650, 652.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.Page 162