Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not objecting to a DNA sample where defendant claimed it exceeded his consent. The post-conviction court found that it didn’t. Moreover, discovery was inevitable because another DNA sample was validly taken two years later as to another victim which would have led to the same result. Chapman v. State, 2020 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 265 (Apr. 17, 2020).
“Undeterred by the AEDPA’s restriction on identical attacks against the same judgment, Petitioner now frames his argument in terms of a Brady violation, rather than a Fourth Amendment violation. However, the ‘exculpatory evidence’ allegedly withheld by prosecutors are judicial opinions, the knowledge of which would have, according to Petitioner’s frivolous argument, led a court to conclude that the seizure violated the Fourth Amendment. Accordingly, Petitioner’s theory of entitlement to relief is identical — and identically meritless — to that from his prior petitions.” Hatten v. United States, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68144 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 16, 2020).*