Heck bar not apparent on the face of the record, so dismissal inappropriate

For Heck bar to apply for a motion to dismiss, it must appear on the face of the record that the search claim collaterally attacks the conviction. Since this did not, it was improper to dismiss without discovery and further development of the claims. Johnson v. Fla. Dep’t of Law Enforcement, 264 Fed. Appx. 785 (11th Cir. 2008) (unpublished).*

Stone v. Powell bar applies in capital case. Brown v. Sirmons, 515 F.3d 1072 (10th Cir. 2008)* (“[H]e pointlessly seeks a ruling that Stone does not apply to capital cases, although we have previously applied it in such cases. See, e.g., Cannon v. Gibson, 259 F.3d 1253, 1260-62 (10th Cir. 1999); ….”).

Since this court found that the officer did not lie during the suppression hearing, the 2255 on the same issue fails. Also, evidence of guilt was overwhelming even without the challenged evidence so there is no prejudice. Gomez v. United States, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8237 (M.D. Fla. February 5, 2008).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.