TN: No IAC: strategic choice to distance def from premises

Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not challenging the search of the premises. The defense at trial was that defendant was merely a guest who didn’t have control of the stuff found there. To link defendant more to the premises was not a good strategic move. Moreover, the appeal brief cites no law that the search would have been invalid or that he had standing. Champion v. State, 2022 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 412 (Sep. 15, 2022):

In the present case, the Petitioner failed to cite to any law concerning searches or seizures in his petition or amended petition. The Petitioner’s appellate brief is likewise deficient in that he fails to cite to any case law concerning the suppression issue and makes minimal argument as to how a motion to suppress would have had merit. “Issues which are not supported by argument, citation to authorities, or appropriate references to the record will be treated as waived in this court.” Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. R. 10(b); see Tenn. R. App. P. 27(a)(7). As a result, we conclude that the Petitioner’s argument regarding prejudice is waived on appeal and that he fails to show that the suppression motion would have been meritorious. See Tommie Phillips, 2022 WL 2092796, at *9.

This entry was posted in Burden of pleading, Ineffective assistance, Standing. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.