{"id":42036,"date":"2020-01-27T00:00:47","date_gmt":"2020-01-27T05:00:47","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=42036"},"modified":"2020-01-26T18:24:26","modified_gmt":"2020-01-26T23:24:26","slug":"fl5-appellate-counsel-in-direct-appeal-was-ineffective-for-not-arguing-automobile-exception-wasnt-applicable-if-it-had-been-argued-court-would-have-reversed","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=42036","title":{"rendered":"FL5: Appellate counsel in direct appeal was ineffective for not arguing automobile exception wasn’t applicable; if it had been argued, court would have reversed"},"content":{"rendered":"

In defendant\u2019s original appeal, appellate counsel argued only that the search incident doctrine applied and he failed on that issue. On post-conviction, however, new counsel argued that the automobile exception should have been argued and that it did not apply because the officer lacked any probable cause that the vehicle contained evidence of crime or contraband. He is correct. \u201cThe trial court erred in denying Jones’s motion to suppress, and Jones’s appellate counsel was ineffective in failing to argue that the automobile exception did not apply. Had counsel raised this issue on appeal, this Court would have been constrained to reverse. Accordingly, we grant Jones’s petition. Because a new appeal would be redundant, we reverse.\u201d Jones v. State<\/a>, 2020 Fla. App. LEXIS 725 (Fla. 5th DCA Jan. 24, 2020).<\/p>\n

Defendant\u2019s claim that the police hadn\u2019t made a transcript of a CI\u2019s conversation in a foreign language that they weren\u2019t shown to have known of yet isn\u2019t a Franks violation. United States v. Teyf, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11219 (E.D. N.C. Jan. 23, 2020).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In defendant\u2019s original appeal, appellate counsel argued only that the search incident doctrine applied and he failed on that issue. On post-conviction, however, new counsel argued that the automobile exception should have been argued and that it did not apply … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[36,21,23],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-42036","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-automobile-exception","category-franks-doctrine","category-ineffective-assistance"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/42036","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=42036"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/42036\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":42037,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/42036\/revisions\/42037"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=42036"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=42036"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=42036"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}