CA11: Stone bars 2254 on a 4A claim; the question is availability of a trial court remedy and appeal, not whether it was correct

2254 CoA denied under Stone. He had a suppression hearing in the trial court and appealed it. “While Mr. Brantley argued that the 2d DCA’s decision was unreasonable, he does not contend that he was denied the opportunity to argue the issue on direct appeal. Any perceived error in the trial or appellate court’s reasoning and conclusions will not override the Stone bar.” Brantley v. Florida, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 23855 (11th Cir. July 28, 2020).*

Parking behind a car in a public place without lights and approaching the car was not inherently coercive. Thus, it was consensual. United States v. Colvin, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 23775 (11th Cir. July 28, 2020).*

This entry was posted in Consent, Issue preclusion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.