{"id":1292,"date":"2007-08-27T07:49:36","date_gmt":"2007-08-27T07:49:36","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2007-08-27T07:49:36","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=1292","title":{"rendered":"Tenn.: Defense counsel’s failure to appeal denial of suppression motion was not IAC (without reaching merits of underlying issue)"},"content":{"rendered":"

Defense counsel’s failure to appeal the suppression motion was not ineffective assistance because it was strategic [nothing is said, however, that he would not have prevailed]. Also, defense counsel’s failure to call defendant to testify at the suppression hearing was based on the fact that defendant had nothing to add, and this issue was waived in the post-conviction proceeding by changing the argument between the trial court and appeal. Cammon v. State<\/a>, 2007 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 673 (August 23, 2007)*:<\/p>\n

There is no constitutional requirement that every conceivable issue be raised on appeal. Campbell v. State<\/em>, 904 S.W.2d 594, 597 (Tenn. 1995). The determination of which issues to raise is a tactical or strategic choice. Id. The petitioner offers nothing on appeal to show that appellate counsel was ineffective in his strategy. Counsel testified that he was experienced in criminal appellate practice and that he made a strategic decision not to appeal the suppression issue because he did not believe it would be successful on appeal. The State correctly argues that appellate counsel’s judgment, as to which issues would likely prevail on appeal, was sound because he did successfully gain a remand on the aggravated assault conviction. Our review does not reflect that the petitioner has met his burden of demonstrating either that appellate counsel’s performance was deficient or that the petitioner was prejudiced by appellate counsel’s representation.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Defense counsel was not ineffective for not filing a motion to suppress that the defendant elected not be filed to expedite the release of his mother from jail. Reyes v. State<\/a>, 2007 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 670 (August 22, 2007).*<\/p>\n

Officers had probable cause to arrest the defendant, so the statement that came from that arrest was not suppressed. United States v. Aldershof, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62448 (D. Kan. August 23, 2007).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1292","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1292","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1292"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1292\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1292"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1292"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1292"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}