N.D.Cal.: Strickland prejudice is subject to harmless error review

The state court post-conviction resolution of this case under § 2254 review was not unreasonable. Even if defense counsel had moved for suppression of evidence he’d stipulated to, the outcome wouldn’t have changed because of the overwhelming other evidence of guilt. Hernandez v. Muniz, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71169 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2019).*

Defendant moved to suppress and it was denied. Two years later, he pled. New counsel gets in and seeks a motion to reconsider. Now he’s pro se on appeal. Nothing is shown that the district court’s findings were even fairly debatable. “Specifically, he fails to explain why the good-faith exception would not have permitted admission of the evidence, thereby preventing him from showing prejudice under Strickland as to this claim.” United States v. Khan, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 12644 (Apr. 25, 2019).*

This entry was posted in Good faith exception, Ineffective assistance. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.