DE: IAC 4A claim requires alleging then showing that the motion to suppress not pursued would have been granted

Defendant wanted to plead guilty in his drug case at the first appearance, and defense counsel persuaded him to wait until discovery was complete. Defendant then wanted to plead, but later he claimed that defense counsel failed to consider all the discovery and file motions to suppress. Defendant doesn’t even allege that the motions to suppress would have been granted if they had been pursued. State v. Taylor, 2017 Del. Super. LEXIS 632 (Nov. 30, 2017).*

Defendant’s 2255 claim involving his search wasn’t directly presented as an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. If it was a pure search claim it was waived by the plea agreement. As to an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, it doesn’t show how he could conceivably win. Smith v. United States, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 200709 (W.D. Ky. Oct. 12, 2017).*

Defendant’s 2255 search and seizure claim was rejected on direct appeal after the conviction, so it can’t be the subject of a 2255. United States v. Huff, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 199577 (D. Kan. Dec. 5, 2017).*

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

Comments are closed.