W.D.Pa.: State court’s resolution of consent issue wasn’t “unreasonable application” of precedent in 2254 proceeding

The state court’s resolution of the consent to search issue was not an “unreasonable application” of precedent in a 2254 proceeding. “In order to overcome AEDPA’s standard of review, Petitioner must show that the state court’s decision ‘cannot reasonably be justified under existing Supreme Court precedent[,]’ … , and his general complaints about his attorney’s representation fall far short of meeting this burden. Furthermore, based on both the PCRA and Superior Court finding that Petitioner’s attorney had no basis to challenge Tuttle’s consent, Petitioner cannot show prejudice in that an omnibus pre-trial motion requesting suppression of evidence on this basis would have been successful. As such, he is not entitled to habeas relief on this ground.” Stackhouse v. Coleman, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54845 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 30, 2019).*

Defendant litigated his search issue on direct appeal, and he can’t do it again in a 2255. Duval v. United States, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54857 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 30, 2019).*

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

Comments are closed.