E.D.Tenn.: 2255 gets hearing on IAC claim; court can’t say that waived issue was meritless or strategic

“Yet, as illustrated above, the record does not contain sufficient information from which the Court can find that a suppression motion would have been meritless. As a result, the Court concludes that an evidentiary hearing is required on this claim. The Court will therefore appoint counsel to represent petitioner, will order that the United States Marshal to return petitioner to this district, and will schedule the necessary evidentiary hearing.” Ramirez v. United States, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116519 (E.D.Tenn. September 1, 2015).

There was probable cause for issuance of the search warrant, and defendant’s Franks challenge fails. “The Court is persuaded by the Government that to the extent Agent Endy’s affidavit excluded information favorable to Defendant, it also excluded information at least as unfavorable to Defendant, so the affidavit cannot be said to be materially misleading.” In any event, the good faith exception applies. United States v. Sistrunk, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115937 (M.D.Pa. August 28, 2015).*

There were statements made in support of the search warrant here that were in reckless disregard for the truth, but, omitting them, there was still probable cause for the search warrant. State v. Rozajewski, 2015 Ida. App. LEXIS 80 (September 3, 2015).*

This entry was posted in Franks doctrine, Ineffective assistance. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.