Appellant doesn\u2019t get a CoA on his claim he could have appealed the denial of the suppression motion despite the guilty plea. United States v. Penton, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 20172 (5th Cir. Aug. 7, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThus, Loston’s claim fails because by pleading guilty, Loston \u2018waived not only the filing of any and all pre-trial motions \u2026 but also any ineffective assistance of counsel claims relating to his counsel’s failure to file a motion to suppress.\u2019 See United States v. Moss, No. 12-CV-1525, 2014 WL 4354535, at 8 (W.D. La. Sept. 2, 2014).\u201d United States v. Loston, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153751 (W.D. La. Aug. 7, 2025).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Petitioner can\u2019t establish cause for procedural default in not appealing his post-conviction Fourth Amendment claim. Johnson v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 20167 (11th Cir. Aug. 8, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201c[A]ppellant’s affidavit was unsupported and self-serving and did not meet the level of cogency required to support his claim for post-conviction relief. The claims contained in the affidavit are completely contradicted by the evidence in the record and introduced at trial and are unsupported by other evidence.\u201d State v. Shamblin, 2025-Ohio-2760 (4th Dist. July 29, 2025).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Appellant doesn\u2019t get a CoA on his claim he could have appealed the denial of the suppression motion despite the guilty plea. United States v. Penton, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 20172 (5th Cir. Aug. 7, 2025).* \u201cThus, Loston’s claim fails … Continue reading