§ 1983 claim over probation revo barred by Heck

Revocation of probation § 1983 claim was barred by Heck. Trevino v. McLean, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94868 (W.D. Tex. September 11, 2008).*

“When a trial lawyer’s failure to pursue a motion to suppress is the basis for a claim of ineffective assistance, ‘the defendant must make a strong showing that the damaging evidence would have been suppressed had counsel made the motion.'” Here, the search was proper. Smith v. State, 294 Ga. App. 692, 670 S.E.2d 191 (2008).*

Consent was a one witness issue in this case, and “[t]he trial court granted the motion to suppress based upon its findings that the officer’s testimony describing the encounter was nebulous and lacked credibility.” The granting of the suppression motion was justified by the evidence. State v. Holloway, 294 Ga. App. 683, 670 S.E.2d 208 (2008).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.