Three on post-conviction and defaulted 4A claims

“Defendant has procedurally defaulted on this claim by never filing a motion to suppress the evidence, but instead pleading guilty. Moreover, a Fourth Amendment claim such as this one is not cognizable on a § 2255 motion. Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465 (1976). Stone applies to Fourth Amendment claims brought in § 2255 motions. Ray v. United States, 721 F.3d 758, 761-762 (6th Cir. 2013).” United States v. Wiggins, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57881 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 28, 2024).*

“To the extent Blazejowski asserts a Fourth Amendment claim or Brady and Giglio violations, the Court finds her claims are unexhausted because she failed to raise them in her direct appeal or in her postconviction filings. Since future attempts to exhaust these claims would be futile, the claims are procedurally defaulted.” Blazejowski v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55321 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 27, 2024).*

NYS has always provided a full and fair opportunity to litigate Fourth Amendment claims in criminal cases, and that applies here. Petitioner had the opportunity. “Valdiviezo next claims that he is actually innocent. … This claim is frivolous.” First, the proof at trial was overwhelming. Second, “he argues that the detectives in his case procured false evidence which was admitted against him at trial — an allegation he fails to back up with any proof.” Valdiviezo v. Shanley, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55345 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2024).*

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

Comments are closed.