Defendant\u2019s plea of guilty waived his claiming IAC against defense counsel for not raising a motion to suppress. The plea colloquy also shows he was satisfied with his lawyer. United States v. Johnson, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53561 (E.D. Ark. May 6, 2011)*:<\/p>\n
Petitioner indicates that he made a conscious decision to plead guilty in the face of the evidence against him. If he had been dissatisfied with his attorney’s representation, he should have made that known before entering his plea of guilty. At his change of plea hearing, I asked Mr. Johnson whether he was satisfied with his lawyer and informed him that if he were in any way dissatisfied, he should tell me at that time. He told me that he was satisfied with his lawyer. Additionally, at his sentencing hearing, I asked him whether there was any reason he should be allowed to withdraw his plea of guilty. He responded that there was not.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Petitioner\u2019s search claim was already litigated and he can\u2019t raise it in a \u00a7 2255, which is denied. Taylor v. United States, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53127 (C.D. Ill. May 18, 2011).*<\/p>\n
Defendant\u2019s girl friend signed a consent to search, and it was never challenged until his \u00a7 2255 that her consent was invalid. Her post-conviction affidavit she did not consent was insufficient to raise the lack of consent as an IAC claim. United States v. Walker, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52862 (E.D. La. May 9, 2011)*:<\/p>\n
Petitioner has not demonstrated the likelihood that any newly discovered evidence pertaining to the search would exonerate him of any of the crimes to which he pled. Indeed, Petitioner has not even enumerated for the Court what the expected evidence is. As the Government points out, Petitioner’s girlfriend gave written consent to search her home at the time of the search, and she also signed a factual basis to this effect. The Court concludes that this argument has no merit.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading