Defendant didn\u2019t object in the trial court to his satellite monitoring condition of his sentence as a violation of the Fourth Amendment, so it can\u2019t be reviewed on appeal. State v. Lindsey, 2018 N.C. App. LEXIS 747 (Aug. 8, 2018).<\/p>\n
Defense counsel did challenge the search warrant precisely as defendant in his 2255 says he didn\u2019t. Moreover, he doesn\u2019t allege a viable alternative with another way to do it that would have produced a better outcome. United States v. Romo, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133591 (D. Mont. Aug. 8, 2018).*<\/p>\n
\u201cWe also conclude that trial counsel’s performance was not deficient for failing to file a motion to suppress Petitioner’s phone records. Trial counsel made a tactical decision to not file a motion to suppress because the motion had no legal basis. As the post-conviction court noted, Petitioner failed to present a legal basis under which trial counsel could have filed the motion. Petitioner is also not entitled to relief under this ground.\u201d Carter v. State<\/a>, 2018 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 591 (Aug. 8, 2018).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Defendant didn\u2019t object in the trial court to his satellite monitoring condition of his sentence as a violation of the Fourth Amendment, so it can\u2019t be reviewed on appeal. State v. Lindsey, 2018 N.C. App. LEXIS 747 (Aug. 8, 2018). … Continue reading