E.D.Tenn.: Def doesn’t show a right to see whether the SW in his case was validly issued; that’s the lawyer’s call; and he pled guilty

“Petitioner alleges that Attorney Greene failed to present critical documents for Petitioner’s review prior to his guilty plea. Petitioner contends that he should have been shown ‘evidence of there being a valid search warrant,’ ‘computer chat logs where the government possibly committed entrapment,’ and evidence that Petitioner ‘blocked’ someone on Facebook that he knew was an adult police officer who was harassing him and alleges that he only met the person to get them to stop harassing him. … The Government responds that Petitioner has not identified information withheld or unknown to him or how reviewing that information would have changed the outcome of his case. … The Government argues that Petitioner should know better than anyone whether he conversed online with minors and enticed them into sexual activity or child pornography, and the Court can rightly presume that Petitioner would not have pleaded guilty unless the underlying facts were actually true. … [¶] The Court first notes that Petitioner chose to plead guilty and did not file a motion to suppress evidence or proceed to trial.” Phelps v. United States, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52147 (E.D.Tenn. Mar. 23, 2022).

Petitioner’s 2255 claim was Stone barred, and he didn’t object to the R&R. No CoA. Altunar-Jimenez v. United States, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 7688 (6th Cir. Mar. 23, 2022).*

12½ month old information for child pornography warrant was not stale. United States v. Irons, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51811 (D.Mass. Mar. 23, 2022).*

This entry was posted in Ineffective assistance, Issue preclusion, Staleness. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.