Defense counsel was not shown to be ineffective for not negotiating a conditional plea. There is no right to a conditional plea, and the government would have had to have agreed with it. Defendant never suggested to defense counsel that he wanted to appeal. United States v. Carvajal-Mora, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118523 (N.D. Okla. December 21, 2009).*<\/p>\n
Defendant\u2019s search argument was belatedly raised ten years late in a post-conviction IAC claim that should have been raised earlier. It is defaulted. State v. Billiter<\/a>, 2009 Ohio 6788, 2009 Ohio App. LEXIS 5698 (5th Dist. December 22, 2009).*<\/p>\n The description of a tall bald man carrying an assault rifle was sufficiently correct to show reasonable suspicion. While defendant was not carrying an assault rifle, he had a container that could have contained a broken down assault rifle. State v. Watson<\/a>, 2009 Ohio 6713, 2009 Ohio App. LEXIS 5631 (3d Dist. December 21, 2009).*<\/p>\n Defendant\u2019s traffic offense of an illegal turn justified his stop. State v. Melone<\/a>, 2009 Ohio 6710, 2009 Ohio App. LEXIS 5637 (11th Dist. December 18, 2009).*<\/p>\n No hearing was required on defendant\u2019s motion to suppress a search warrant for lack of probable cause because it can be determined on the papers, and there was probable cause for this search. United States v. Riley, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119198 (D. Nev. November 23, 2009).*<\/p>\n Where the offense alleged in the affidavit for search warrant was harboring illegal aliens for commercial advantage in a complex scheme, there was reason to believe there would be business records kept there. United States v. Mireles, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119107 (W.D. N.Y. November 23, 2009) (USMJ R&R).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading