CA10: 2255 petitioner learned after guilty plea A-C communications were recorded in jail; no relief from plea because no effect shown

2255 petitioner was in pretrial incarceration in the private jail in Leavenworth which notoriously recorded conversations between attorneys and clients. He pled guilty with the standard 2255 waiver. This violation of his rights does not survive the waiver, and he doesn’t even allege ineffective assistance of counsel. United States v. Spaeth, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 14632 (10th Cir. June 12, 2023) (an interesting opinion on Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258 (1973)).

No suppression hearing is required when the defense doesn’t show a material fact dispute for a hearing. If it can be decided on the papers it will. United States v. Lyles, 322-011, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100948 (S.D. Ga. May 1, 2023),* adopted, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100122 (S.D. Ga. June 8, 2023).*

“Assuming appellant’s motion regarding the disposition of his digital property was a motion for a Franks hearing, appellant did not satisfy the three elements outlined above to establish a prima facie violation under Franks. … Accordingly, for this reason also, we conclude nothing was preserved for appellate review. …” Liebbe v. State, 2023 Tex. App. LEXIS 4025 (Tex. App. – Dallas June 9, 2023).*

This entry was posted in Franks doctrine, Prison and jail searches, Suppression hearings. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.