One of defendant\u2019s 2255 claims was that defense counsel was ineffective for not filing a motion to suppress when he doesn\u2019t allege anything about it and he plead guilty. Pullu v. United States, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 197809 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 20, 2018).*<\/p>\n
Defendant was convicted of child pornography offenses, and he filed a 2255 over defense counsel\u2019s failure to file a motion to suppress. \u201cTaylor raises several specific arguments why the evidence against him would have been susceptible to suppression, which the Court addresses below [in fair detail]. These arguments warrant consideration but fall short of undermining the judge’s finding of probable cause.\u201d Taylor v. United States, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 197295 (S.D. Ind. Nov. 20, 2018).*<\/p>\n
Defense counsel wasn\u2019t ineffective for not pursuing a motion to suppress the search of a hotel room that, by all accounts, would have failed on the merits. United States v. Baughman, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 198775 (W.D. Ark. Nov. 22, 2018).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
One of defendant\u2019s 2255 claims was that defense counsel was ineffective for not filing a motion to suppress when he doesn\u2019t allege anything about it and he plead guilty. Pullu v. United States, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 197809 (S.D. Fla. … Continue reading