GA: An issue briefed but not heard at the suppression hearing was fairly presented and preserved

A newer issue raised in a post-hearing brief on the motion to suppress was a part of the motion when it was decided by the trial court. A padlock on a door and a fan running inside does not support the conclusion that there was a grow operation inside. The odor of marijuana in the air wasn’t enough. Wingate v. State, 2018 Ga. App. LEXIS 515 (Sep. 19, 2018).*

Any motion to suppress would have been fruitless, so there was no ineffective assistance of counsel, for lack of standing and because the protective sweep for a shotgun was justified. Lee v. United States, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 159910 (D. N.J. Sep. 19, 2018).*

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

Comments are closed.