D.Md.: Strategic basis for waiving motion to suppress: it improved plea bargain

Defense counsel filed a colorable motion to suppress that here apparently improved defendant’s plea bargaining position. Thus it was reasonable to waive the motion for the plea, and there was no ineffective assistance. Walker v. United States, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100069 (D.Md. July 29, 2015):

More to the point, Walker’s Fourth Amendment claim was not nearly so ironclad as he believes. While the search of Walker’s residence was indeed warrantless, there is certainly evidence indicating that the protective sweep that produced the shotgun was justified. Walker, by all accounts, had possessed a gun when he fled inside. When he was arrested, Walker was unarmed, meaning there was a loaded weapon somewhere inside the house. The police also knew there was at least one other person in the house, Walker’s grandmother, and there is nothing in the record to indicate that it was clearly unreasonable for the police to conduct a brief protective sweep to ensure that she did not have access to the firearm, or that there was no other individual in the home. It is not necessary to decide whether Walker would have won or lost his motion to suppress. It is sufficient to recognize that it was reasonable for counsel to have enough doubts about the prospects for success that he was competent in advising Walker to accept a favorable plea offer. Had Walker litigated the motion to suppress and lost, his leverage in plea negotiations would vanish.

To the same effect: Higgins v. United States, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98644 (W.D.Tenn. July 29, 2015)* (Defendant received a 35 year drug and gun sentence by pleading. His 2255 was rejected because it was reasonable to not litigate a possible motion to suppress and plead guilty and avoid the § 851 drug enhancement and mandatory life.).

This entry was posted in Ineffective assistance. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.