2255 petitioner faults his lawyer for not asking for a hearing on his motion to suppress, which lost, but he doesn\u2019t show that it mattered. Moreover, this is really just taking a shot at recharacterizing the motion to suppress, but that fails. No matter how he puts it, he can\u2019t prevail. Fonville v. United States, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 152254 (E.D.N.C. Aug. 7, 2025):<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Although Fonville characterizes his first claim as an ineffective assistance of counsel claim in failing to request an evidentiary hearing on the motion to suppress, Fonville really seeks to recharacterize his claim concerning the motion to suppress that he lost on direct appeal. Fonville, however, cannot use section 2255 to recharacterize and relitigate a claim that he lost on direct appeal. \u2026 Thus, Fonville’s claim concerning the motion to suppress fails.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Alternatively, Fonville does not plausibly allege deficient performance or prejudice arising from counsel’s decision to not request an evidentiary hearing on the motion to suppress. See, Premo v. Moore, 562 U.S. 115, 123-28 (2011); Knowles v. Mirzayance, 556 U.S. 111, 124-27 (2009); Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687-91, 698, 700. The Fourth Circuit explained the nexus between the Mayfair Drive residence and other evidence indicating that Fonville was involved in heroin trafficking. See [D.E. 161] 4-5. Judge Swank did too. See [D.E. 75] 2-10.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
2255 petitioner faults his lawyer for not asking for a hearing on his motion to suppress, which lost, but he doesn\u2019t show that it mattered. Moreover, this is really just taking a shot at recharacterizing the motion to suppress, but … Continue reading