2255 argument that defense counsel was ineffective for not arguing a search issue fails for not elaborating on what that argument should have been and for not including the search warrant materials. Byrd v. United States, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39332 (M.D. N.C. Mar. 12, 2019).*<\/p>\n
\u201c[A]s a stand-alone ground for relief, the petitioner’s challenge to the search of his vehicle qualifies as having been previously determined and, as such, he cannot raise it in a post-conviction petition. … Moreover, because nothing suggests that the validity of the search was anything other than fully and fairly litigated, the \u2018presentation of the merits of the cause\u2019 would not \u2018otherwise be subserved\u2019 by the trial court’s refusal to allow the addition of this issue couched in terms of ineffective assistance of counsel.\u201d Carter v. StateCarter v. State<\/a>Carter v. State, 2019 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 162 (Mar. 12, 2019).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" 2255 argument that defense counsel was ineffective for not arguing a search issue fails for not elaborating on what that argument should have been and for not including the search warrant materials. Byrd v. United States, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS … Continue reading