Defendant sought a successor 2255 habeas petition on the ground his lawyer failed to properly litigate a cell phone search issue before Riley was even decided. Denied: no showing of prejudice. In re Conroy, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 25139 (1st Cir. Oct. 29, 2014):
\n<\/p>\n
In a successive \u00a7 2255 motion, Conroy wishes to assert the following claims. First, his counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the warrantless search of his cellular phone and to argue that the search was unconstitutional. Second, the court that convicted him did not have jurisdiction because the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 2251(a), one of the statutes of conviction, “is in doubt.” Third, his attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel because counsel did not adequately investigate the “search and seizure of Conroy’s electronic media.” Fourth, the Government committed a Brady violation by not fully disclosing discovery that would have revealed that the search and seizure of his electronic media was unconstitutional. He purports to rely on new rules of constitutional law in Bond v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 2077 (2014), Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (2014), and Maryland v. King, 133 S. Ct. 1958 (2013), for the first two proposed claims and on newly discovered evidence for the other proposed claims.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendant sought a successor 2255 habeas petition on the ground his lawyer failed to properly litigate a cell phone search issue before Riley was even decided. Denied: no showing of prejudice. In re Conroy, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 25139 (1st … Continue reading