Three on ineffective assistance claims

There’s no reasonable probability defense counsel was ineffective for not filing a motion to suppress defendant’s BAC because it wouldn’t have been granted. State v. Olsen, 2019-Ohio-568, 2019 Ohio App. LEXIS 588 (2d Dist. Feb. 15, 2019),*

Petitioner’s ineffective assistance of counsel on a search claim was raised and rejected in state court. On habeas, it’s treated as not an unreasonable application of federal law under 2254(d)(1) ignoring the bar of Stone v. Powell which isn’t even cited. [Right result, wrong reason.] Virgil v. Inch, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24342 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 14, 2019).*

Defense counsel allegedly not investigating the search warrant returns for exculpatory evidence is a speculative 2255 claim because there’s no showing that anything would help the defense if counsel had. White v. United States, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24315 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 14, 2019).*

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

Comments are closed.