M.D.Ala.: Def’s 2255 alternative SITA argument wouldn’t succeed; search issue litigated at first as protective sweep

One ground of defendant’s 2255 was that defense counsel didn’t pursue his motion to suppress in the district court as a search incident. It was litigated as a protective sweep, defendant lost, and it was affirmed on appeal. His search incident alternative claim wouldn’t have prevailed. Hollis v. United States, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11592 (M.D. Ala. Jan. 25, 2019)*:

In light of the basis on which the Eleventh Circuit upheld the warrantless sweep-search and seizure—that officers discovered drugs and firearms in open view during a valid protective sweep of the apartment where Hollis was arrested under a valid warrant—Hollis’s unlawful-search-incident-to-arrest argument under Chimel would not have succeeded and would not have resulted in the suppression of the seized evidence. Hollis’s trial and appellate counsel were not ineffective for failing to assert such an argument or to seek a hearing based on this argument. This claim entitles Hollis to no relief.

This entry was posted in Ineffective assistance. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.