United States of America v. Ricardo Daniel Rodriguez

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RICARDO DANIEL RODRIGUEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 11-30215
D.C. No. 3:10-po-00120-MHW-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Idaho
Edward J. Lodge, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 6, 2012**
Seattle, Washington
Before: NOONAN, GRABER, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Appellant Ricardo Daniel Rodriguez challenges his conviction for
misdemeanor assault in Indian country. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1291, and affirm the district court.
FILED
AUG 09 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 4 --

2
Rodriguez argues that his counsel was ineffective for failing to request a jury
instruction covering self-defense and defense of others. We disagree. We reach
this issue on direct appeal despite the general rule precluding such review because
the record is sufficiently developed to determine that Rodriguez’s counsel was not
ineffective. See United States v. Benford, 574 F.3d 1228, 1231 (9th Cir. 2009).
Rodriguez’s action of charging Talbott after Talbott backed away negates
any claim of self-defense or defense of others. See Ninth Circuit Model Criminal
Jury Instructions, 6.8, Self-Defense; see also Williams v. Woodford, 384 F.3d 567,
610-11 (9th Cir. 2004), as amended (holding that counsel need not put on a
defense that is unsupported by credible evidence).
Rodriguez also contends that the Magistrate Judge abused his discretion by
admitting evidence concerning the shooting of the defendant and his companion.
However, the fact that Talbott used his firearm and that the assault ended only after
he used it, was relevant evidence of the seriousness of the assault. ” See Fed R.
Evid. 401; see also United States v. Alvarez, 358 F.3d 1194, 1205 (9th Cir. 2004)
(“Trial judges have wide discretion in determining whether evidence is relevant. . .
.”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
Rodriguez argues further that there was not sufficient evidence to support
the Magistrate Judge’s denial of the motion for acquittal or to support the jury’s

-- 2 of 4 --

3
verdict. This argument also fails because a reasonable jury could draw the
inference that Talbott’s injuries resulted from wounds he sustained when
Rodriguez tackled, choked, and wrestled Talbott. See United States v. Rosales,
516 F.3d 749, 752 (9th Cir. 2008) (“Viewing the evidence in the light most
favorable to the prosecution requires us to presume that the trier of fact resolved
any conflicting inferences in favor of the prosecution.”) (citation, alterations, and
internal quotation marks omitted).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 4 --

United States v. Rodriguez, No. 11-30215
GRABER, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I concur in part and dissent in part.
With respect to the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, I would follow
our general rule, which is not to decide such a claim on direct review. United
States v. Rahman, 642 F.3d 1257, 1259–60 (9th Cir. 2011). Rodriguez could bring
this claim through a petition for a writ of error coram nobis. Holloway v. United
States, 393 F.2d 731, 732 (9th Cir. 1968). In my view, it is not entirely clear,
without the presentation of additional evidence, that counsel’s performance could
not have been deficient.
In all other respects, I concur fully.
FILED
AUG 09 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 4 of 4 --