UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

CHARLES EDWARD HALE, a/k/a Christopher Edward Hale,

Defendant-Appellant.	No. 00-5248

(D.C. No. 00-CR-55-C)

(N.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before EBEL, KELLY and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.

On August 16, 2000, Charles Edward Hale, the defendant-appellant, pled guilty to one count of possessing ammunition after a former felony conviction, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e). The district court sentenced Mr. Hale on November 30, 2000, to 180 months in prison followed by five years of supervised release, and Mr. Hale timely filed an appeal arguing that the district court erred as a matter of law in accepting his guilty plea because he was represented by ineffective counsel.

Pursuant to the Supreme Court's holding in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Mr. Hale's counsel, Michael Abel, filed a brief indicating that he had "thoroughly researched" Mr. Hale's ineffective assistance of counsel claim and found it without merit.1 Mr. Abel based this conclusion on precedent from this Court holding that ineffective assistance of counsel claims normally should be raised in collateral proceedings rather than on direct appeal. Mr. Abel, in accordance with Anders, also filed a motion to withdraw as Mr. Hale's attorney of record. 386 U.S. at 744. Mr. Hale received a copy of Mr. Abel's brief, and he responded by submitting a letter that requested the appointment of counsel but that did not discuss the merits of the Anders brief.

We have explained that ineffective assistance of counsel claims "brought on direct appeal are presumptively dismissible," United States v. Galloway, 56 F.3d 1239, 1240 (10th Cir. 1995) (en banc). "[O]nly in the very rare instance that a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is fully developed in the record will we hear it for the first time on appeal." United States v. Boigegrain, 155 F.3d 1181, 1186 (10th Cir. 1998). The record in this case is not sufficiently developed to trigger this unusual exception.

Consequently, we DISMISS Mr. Hale's ineffective assistance of counsel appeal, though we note that this dismissal does not preclude Mr. Hale from raising this claim under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We also GRANT Mr. Abel's motion to withdraw as counsel.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

David M. Ebel

Circuit Judge