D.Conn.: 2255 isn’t the remedy for return of property; it’s Rule 41(g)

Defense counsel isn’t ineffective for not appealing a conviction when the only real remedy he seeks is for return of property which would be by a Rule 41(g) motion which hasn’t been filed. Dismissed without prejudice. Green v. United States, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10353 (D. Conn. Jan. 23, 2018).*

Defendant’s case was not “removed” from state court. A state court judge issued a search warrant based on application of a DEA task force officer, but the initial complaint was filed in federal court. This is the third successor petition dismissed for lack of certification from the circuit and utter lack of merit. Skinner v. United States, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10418 (S.D. Miss. Jan. 23, 2018).*

“Finally, Petitioner contends that post-conviction discovery will demonstrate that counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the legality of the search warrant. [¶] This claim is facially insufficient because Petitioner fails to set forth its legal or factual basis. He does not specify any factual or legal foundation upon which counsel could have challenged the search warrant, let alone a foundation so strong that no competent counsel would have overlooked it. Nor does he allege any fact that, if true, would establish a reasonable probability that a challenge to the search warrant would have been successful and resulted in a different trial outcome. Accordingly, this claim is denied as too vague and conclusory to support relief.” Hamilton v. United States, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10165 (W.D. N.C. Jan. 23, 2018).*

This entry was posted in Ineffective assistance, Rule 41(g) / Return of property. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.