DE: Defense counsel’s letter to client why 4A claim would fail shows def would never prevail

“Turning to Stokes’ claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate his case and make various arguments on his behalf, the record refutes this claim. First, it is clear that trial counsel carefully considered filing a motion to suppress. The record includes a letter trial counsel sent to Stokes reviewing the information that the police relied upon to obtain a search warrant for Stokes’ residence where the police found the contraband that led to Stokes’ charges. Paragraph by paragraph, trial counsel examines contents of the warrant and explains why, in his professional opinion, a motion to suppress would not be successful.” Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective. Stokes v. State, 2021 Del. LEXIS 115 (Mar. 26, 2021). (Wise move by defense counsel. I’ve also mailed marked up copies of the affidavit showing why a motion to suppress would fail against the good faith exception or a lack of probable cause.)

Petitioner’s habeas Fourth Amendment claim is barred by Stone because he had a full and fair opportunity to litigate it in state court. Foncette v. Muse, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58677 (D. Ariz. Mar. 26, 2021).*

This entry was posted in Ineffective assistance, Issue preclusion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.