TN: Post-conviction petitioner bears burden of showing warrantless search was invalid; here, no witnesses to search called

Defendant on post-conviction did not prove that the motion to suppress an inventory would have been granted (and Tennessee law is favorable to the defense). All he called as witnesses were the lawyers involved and himself, but that does not establish that he would have prevailed in the trial court on the merits. It’s his responsibility to make a record on the post-conviction motion by showing that it would be granted, and he did not. Fisher v. State, 2015 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 801 (October 2, 2015).

On review of the R&R, the USMJ’s credibility determination is adopted. Defendant answered a buzzer at this apartment without asking who was there and let in the officers thinking they were just a friend. At the door, they asked him if he was a citizen, and he was not. They asked for his papers for a legal entry, and he had none. He was here despite previously being deported for an aggravated felony. United States v. Ortega-Montalvo, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134569 (W.D.Mo. October 2, 2015),* R&R 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135403 (W.D. Mo. July 29, 2015).*

This entry was posted in Burden of proof, Consent, Ineffective assistance. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.