In defendant’s original appeal, appellate counsel argued only that the search incident doctrine applied and he failed on that issue. On post-conviction, however, new counsel argued that the automobile exception should have been argued and that it did not apply because the officer lacked any probable cause that the vehicle contained evidence of crime or contraband. He is correct. “The trial court erred in denying Jones’s motion to suppress, and Jones’s appellate counsel was ineffective in failing to argue that the automobile exception did not apply. Had counsel raised this issue on appeal, this Court would have been constrained to reverse. Accordingly, we grant Jones’s petition. Because a new appeal would be redundant, we reverse.” Jones v. State, 2020 Fla. App. LEXIS 725 (Fla. 5th DCA Jan. 24, 2020).
Defendant’s claim that the police hadn’t made a transcript of a CI’s conversation in a foreign language that they weren’t shown to have known of yet isn’t a Franks violation. United States v. Teyf, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11219 (E.D. N.C. Jan. 23, 2020).*