Defendant claims his attorney was ineffective for failing to tell him about a possible motion to suppress, and, thus, he wouldn\u2019t have pled guilty. The court, however, finds no facts anywhere in the case supporting even an inference there was a Fourth Amendment violation. Therefore, Strickland not met. Richardson v. United States, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98968 (S.D. Ind. June 13, 2019).*<\/p>\n
Defendant\u2019s 2254 COA request is denied. His primary claim is that his state adjudicated search claim was wrong, but Stone bars review of that. Quezada v. Raemisch, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 17713 (10th Cir. June 13, 2019).*<\/p>\n
In answering a certified question from federal court, an \u201call due care standard\u201d would grant qualified immunity under Iowa law. Baldwin v. City of Estherville<\/a>, 2019 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 78 (June 14, 2019).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Defendant claims his attorney was ineffective for failing to tell him about a possible motion to suppress, and, thus, he wouldn\u2019t have pled guilty. The court, however, finds no facts anywhere in the case supporting even an inference there was … Continue reading