## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 09

- 3025 A NDR EW C. K OONS, P et it ioner-App el lant, v. U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, R espo nd ent-A pp ellee.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the S outhernDi stricto f Indian a, Ev ansvill e D ivisi on. No . 3:08- CV-00191

—Richar d L . Y oun g, Chief Judge .
A RG UE D J AN UA RY 21, 2011

— D ECI DE D A PRI L 28, 2011

Befo re F LA UM, M A NI ON, a nd E VANS, C ircu it Judges . F LA UM, Ci r c u i tJ udg e . And re w Koons pl ed gui l ty to bei ng a fel on i n posse ssion o f a fir ear m , i n vi ol ati on o f18 U. S

. C. § § 92 2( g ) ( 1) a nd 9 24 ( e) ( 1)
. He p etiti o ns pur su an t to 28 U. S

. C. § 2 2 5 5 t o v a c a t e h i s p l e a b a s e d o n i ne ffe cti ve ass i sta nce o fco unsel, ar gui ng tha t hi s t ri alco unsel faile d to p u rs u e a p ot en tia l Fou rt h A m e n d m en t c laim th at m ay h av e w ar ra n te d su p p re ss in g s ign ifica n t e vidence ag ai nst hi m . I n the al ternati ve, Koons r eq uests2 N o. 09

- 3025

The record does not c onclus ivel y indicat e how m any offic ers 1 w en t t o K oo ns’s w or k p lace. T his op inio n re fers to a sing le offi c er, al thoughm or e thanon e m ay have be enpr es en t dur i ng the e ve nt s di s c us s e d. an ev i denti ar y hea ring to ev aluate hi s ineffecti ve ass i sta nce cl ai m . The di str i ct c ourtdeni ed K oo n s’ s m ot i o n . We a ffi r m.

I . B a c kg r o und T h e W ar ric k C ou n ty Sh er iff’s O ffice rec eiv ed a tip that K oo ns poss ess ed a s tol en ve hi cl e. On A pri l 19 , 20 07, l aw e nforc emento ffi ce r s wentt o hi s ho m e an d f o und the s tol en ve hi cl e par ked i n fro nt . N o one answ er ed when th e o ffi ce r s k no ck ed o n Ko o ns’s frontdo o r . But a nei ghb or a pp ro ached and i nfo rm ed the offi cer s that Koo ns wa s a t wo r k a n d , a mo n g o th e r th i n g s , th a the had rec entl y par ti ci pated i n a fi re ar m s t ra nsacti on with K oo ns. A t l eas t one o ffi certhen w ent t o K oo ns’ s pl ace ofem plo ym ent. 1 The pa r ti es di spu te w ha t ha ppen ed ne xt
. The g o ve r nm ent c l ai m s that Koons vol untari l y s poke to the o ffi cer an d s ta te d , “ [i ]t ’ s ab o utthe g uns , ” r efer r i ngt o the g uns he ha d a t h is h ou se , a nd the n o ffer ed to tur n the g uns o v e r t o th e o ffi c e r i fhe wo u l d d r i v e K o o n s h o me i mm edi ate l y. The go ver nm en t’s ver si on o fthe eve nts w as supporte d by uncontr adic ted r eco rd ev i dence bef or e Koons fi l ed hi s § 22 55 peti ti on. The p et i ti on al l ege s that the offic er w ho ca m e t o hi s pl ace ofem plo y-N o. 09

- 3025 3

m ent c l ai m ed to have a w ar ra nt to se ar ch Koons’ s ho m e, to l d Koo ns tha t he was r equi r ed to a cc o m pan y the offi cerbac k to hi s ho m e a nd l et hi m i n, and br andishe d a weapon w hen K oo ns expre sse d unw i l l i ngness. The o ffi ce r drov e K o o ns b ac kt o hi s r es i den ce a nd K oo ns i nvi ted the o ffi ceri nsi de so he c oul d turn o ver f our fi re ar m s. K oo n s w ent thro ugh the house, l oca ted th e f ou r firea r m s, a nd ha nde d the m t o the o ffi ce r . The gov er nm ent doe s no t claim to have had orpursued a se ar chwar r an t. I ns te ad, i t ar g ue s th atKoo ns vol untari l y c onse nted to the sea rch. Ko ons disputes th i s i n h i s peti ti o n, s ta tingtha t he was f o l l o wi ng th e officer’s or d ers, not cons en ting. A gain, al l record evi dence prec edi ng Koons’ s peti ti on s up port s the go ver nm ent’ s a ccount. A fterr ecei vi ng hi s M i r anda w ar ni ngs an d pr o vi di nga wai ve r, Koo ns t o l d the o ffi ce r s th athe wa s s t o r i ng the fi r e a r ms f o r a n a c qu a i nt a nc e , M att Ric e, tha t h e pu rchas ed the vehi cl e in questi on, and that he was una war e i t was s to l en . On Ju ly 25, 20 07, Koons was char ged with bei ng a f e lon in p os se ss ion an d an arm ed ca re er cr im in al, in vio lat ion of 18 U .S.C

. § § 92 2(g )(1) an d 92 4(e )(1) . Sh or tly ther eafter, the m agi str ate j ud ge appoint ed att or ney To byS ha w I I( “t r i alc o uns el ”) t o r epr es en t Koo ns . Koo ns subm i tte d a peti ti on t o entera gui l ty ple a o n Decem ber5, 20 07. T he di st r i ctc o ur t he l d a c ha ng e- o f

- pl ea he ar i ng o n Mar ch2 7, 2 00 8, a t whi chKoo ns t es ti fi ed th athe w as en te rin g h is gu ilty p lea kn ow in gly an d vo l u n t a rily and acknowle dged that he had “ve rytho ro ughl y” discus se d do i ngs o wi tht r i alc o uns el

. The g o ve r nm en t4 N o. 09

- 3025 al so prese nted a witness , Sp eci alA gent Ch ad Fo re m an (“A gent For em an”) , o fthe Feder alBureau o fA l coh ol, Tobacco , Fi re ar m s & E xplos i ves, wh o tes ti fi ed that, amongo th erthi ng s, Koo ns v o l unt ar i l y c o ns en te d t o the se ar cho fhi s ho m e. Koo ns a ckno wl edg ed th atAge nt For em an ’s tes ti m ony about the ho m e s ear ch w as tr ue. T h e c ou rtac c ep te d K oo n s’s gu ilty p l e a a fte r fin d in g it kn ow in g a n d vo lu n ta ry . Tr ial c ou n se l d id n otfile a m oti on t o sup p re ss or othe rwis e obj ect to evi dence uncover ed duri ng the se ar ch ofKoons’ s ho m e. Tr i al co uns el m et wi th Koo ns o n M ay 7, 2008, and J une 24, 20 08, to di scuss the pr ese ntence i nvest i gat i on re port( “P SR ”) and K oo ns’ s obj ecti ons to i t. A m ong othe r th in gs , the PSR echo ed A gent For em an’ s t est i m ony that K oo ns conse nted to the sea rch of hi s hom e. T ria l counsel fi l ed se ve r alo bj ec ti o ns t o the PS R r eg ar di ngs en te nc i ng issues , bu t non e ad d r e ssing th e officer’s vi sit to Koo ns ’s em plo ym ent o r the s ear ch ofhi s ho m e. Dur i ngKoo ns ’ s senten cinghe ar i ngo n J ul y 7, 2 00 8, the di st r i ctc o ur t su m m ar i ze d fr o m the PS R tha t Koo ns co ns en te d t o the searc h ofhi s ho m e. No o ne a t th e se nte nc i nghe ar i ngment i o ned th atKoo ns pr o po se d a c o nfl ict in g v ersion of the even ts on A p ril19 or that th ere was a n y a l l e g a t i o n th a th e wa s f o r c e d t o a c c o m pan y officers to his hom e and l et th em i n. T h e d is t r ict court se nt en ce d Koo ns t o 1 80 months of impri so nm en t an d fi ve yea rs o fsuperv i sed r el eas e. K oo ns m ove d to vacat e hi s co nvi cti on a nd se ntence on co lla t e r al a p p ea l p u rs u an t t o 2 8 U .S.C . § 22 55 . H is p et iti o n a lleg es th at tria l co u n se l w as co n st itu tio n allyN o. 09

- 3025 5 defi ci ent duri ng the p l ea proce ss f or, am ong otherthi ngs, f ai l i ngt o i nv es ti g at e th e po te nt i alF o ur thAm en dm en t cl a i m Ko o ns di s c us s e d in hi s p e t i t i o n a nd f o r n ot m oving to suppress o r obj ect to th e incl usi on o fev i dence d i sc o ve r ed as a r es ul t o fthe a l l eg ed F o ur thAm en dm en t vi ol ati on. K oo ns al so sought an evi denti ar y he ar i ng. The go ver nm ent’ s r esponse i ncl ud ed an affi davi t fro m t r i a l c o u n s el tha twe d i s c u s s i n mo r e d e p th b e l o w. The di st r i ctc o ur t den i ed Koo ns ’ s habe as pe titi on a nd re quest foran e vi denti ar y hea ring. Koons a pp eal s.

II . A n alysis A . I neff ect i ve A ssi st ance ofCoun sel K oo n s a rg u es th at tria l co u n se l w as co n st itu tio n ally i n ad eq uate f orf ai l i ng to i nvest i gat e the ci rcum sta nces su r r o undi ngthe sear cho fhi s ho m e o n Apr i l 1 9 an d f o r n eg lec tin g t o m ov e t o s u p p re ss th e e vid en c e c ollec t e d a s a res u lt of t h e s ea rc h . A lth ou gh “a n u n c on d iti onalgui l ty ple a waiv es al l non-j uri sd i cti onaldefects occur ring pri orto the ple a, ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Vi l l egas , 38 8 F. 3d 317, 3 22 ( 7th Ci r. 20 04) ( quoti ng U ni t e d S t at e s v. E l iz a l d e -A d a me, 2 62 F
. 3d 63 7, 6 39 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 1) ) , K oons ca n c h a l l e n g e th e v a l i d i t yo fh i s g u i l t y p l e a b y de m o nstr ati ng tha t he re c ei ved i neffecti ve ass i sta nce fro m c ou n se l d u rin g t h e p lea p ro c es s, H ill v . Loc kha rt, 474 U .S . 52, 56 (19 84 ); Vil l egas , 3 88 F
. 3d at3 22

- 23
. As the fol low ing d iscus sion d em ons trates, how ever, Ko ons ’s c ha l l e ng e do e s n o ts uc c e e d. The Si xth A m endm ent pr ovi des c ri m i nal defendants th e ri gh t to cou ns el. U
. S. C O NST . a men d. VI
. “ [ I ] nhe r en t6 N o. 09

- 3025 i n thi s r i g hti s th atthe d efe nda nti s en ti tl ed to the effective assistanc e of cou n sel.

. . . Th e im p ortan t inqu iry i s ‘ whethe r c o uns el ’ s co nduc t so unde r m i ne d the pr o perfunc ti o ni ngo fthe a dve r sa r i alpr o ce ss tha t th e tr i al cannot be re l i ed on as having produced a j us t resul t. ’ ” U nite d State s v . R ec en diz , 557 F.3d 511 , 531 (7th C ir. 2009 ) ( quoti ng St r i ck l and v. Was hi ngt on , 46 6 U.S. 668, 6 8 6 ( 1 9 8 4 ) )
. T o p r e v a i l o n a n i n e ffe c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e c l a i m, a p etitioner m us t e stab li sh that his “cou ns el’ s p erform an ce w as d efi cient ” an d that “the d e fi cient perform ance pr ej ud i ced the defen se. ” St r i ck l and, 46 6 U.S

. at 68 7. W h et h er tria l co u n se l p ro vid ed co n st itu t ion ally i na dequa te a ss i stance i s a m i xe d que st i o n o fl aw a nd fac t t h at w e r e v i ew d e n ov o. R ec endiz , 55 7 F
. 3d at 531; s e eal s o S t r i ck l and, 46 6 U.S

. at69 8. To dem onst ra te defi ci ent perf or m ance, the pe ti ti oner m ust s how “that co unsel ’ s r epres entat i on fell bel ow an obj ecti ve sta n d ar d ofr eas onabl eness . ” St r i ck l and, 44 6 U
. S. at6 88
. “ Thi s m ea ns i den ti fy i ng a ct s o r o m i ss i o ns ofco unsel thatco uld notbe the r esul t o fpro fess i onal j ud gm ent. The questi on is wh etheran a tto rney ’ s r eprese nt at i o n a m o unt ed to i nc o m pet en ce unde r pr evail i ng profess i onalnor m s, notwh etheri t devi ate d fr om bes t pract i ces orm ostco m m on cust om . ” Sus s m an v. Je nki ns , N o. 09

- 3940 , sl i p op. at 4 7 ( 7th Ci r. A pr. 1, 20 11) ( i nter nal quotati on m ar ks and cita tions om i tte d). “Our r evi ew o f th e at to r ne y ’ s per f o r m an ce i s ‘ hi g hl y de fer en ti al ’ a nd re fl ects ‘ a s tr ong pr es u m pti on that co unsel ’ s co nd uct f al l s withi n the w i de ra nge o freas onabl e pr ofess i onal as si st an ce ; tha t i s, the de fen dan t m us t o ve r co m e th e p re su m p tio n th at, un d er th e c irc u m st an c es , th e c h al-N o. 09

- 3025 7 l enged ac ti on m i ght b e co nsi dered so und tr i alst ra tegy . ’ ” D a vis v . Lam bert, 38 8 F
. 3d 1052 , 10 59 ( 7th Ci r. 20 04) ( quoti ng St r i ck l and, 446 U .S . a t 6 89 ); s e eal s o Harr i ngt on v. R ich ter, 13 1 S

. Ct. 77 0, 78 7 ( 20 11 ) ( “A co urt cons i der i ng a cl ai m o fi ne ff ective a ss i st an ce musta ppl y a s tr o ng p re su m p tio n th at co u n se l’s re p re se n ta tio n w as w ith in the wide ra n ge ofr eas onabl e pr ofess i onalas si sta nce. Th e c h a l l e n g e r ’ s b u r d e n i s t o s h o w th a t c o u n s e l ma de er r o r s so s er i o us tha t co uns elwas no t func ti o ni nga s the c o un s e l g ua r a nt e e d the de fe nd a ntb y the S i xth Am e nd

m en t.” ( intern al quo tation m arks an d citation om itted ))
. To e st ab l i shpr ej udi ce i n the pl ea c o nt ex t, the defe nd ant m ust dem onst ra te thro ugh objec ti ve evi dence th at“ th er e i s a r ea so nabl e pr o babi l i tytha t, b utf o r c o unse l’s erro rs , h e w ou ld n ot h av e ple ad ed gu ilty an d w o u ld have i nsi ste d on go i ng to tr i al

. ” Lo ck ha rt, 4 74 U .S. at 5 9; see a l s o P rem o v. M o o re, 131 S.C t. 73 3, 74 3 (2 01 1); Berkey v . U nited Sta tes , 318 F .3d 76 8, 77 3 (7 th C ir. 20 03 ); H ut ch i ngs v. U nited Sta tes , 6 1 8 F
. 3d 693, 697 (7th Cir. 2010). M er ely a l l eg i ng“ th athe woul d ha ve i ns i st ed o n go i ng to tria l” is in ad e q u a t e. H ut ch i ngs , 61 8 F
. 3d at 697. W e ne ed no t r ea chthe “ pr ej udi ce ” i nqui r y, ho w ever, bec au se Koo ns f ai l s to e st ab l i shtha t tr i alc o uns el ’ s per for m an c e w as co n st itu tio n ally d efic ien t. Se eStri ck l and, 466 U
. S. at 687, 69 7; M i l o n ev . C a mp , 22 F. 3d 693, 70 3- 04 (7th C ir. 1994); see a lso Chang v. U ni t e d S ta tes , 250 F. 3d 79, 84 ( 2d Cir. 2001). A si de fro m Koons’ s § 22 55 peti ti on, the re cor d evi dence unequivo cal l y su pp or ts the g ove rnm ent’ s v er si on o f the e vents

— th atKoo ns v o l unt ar i l y c o ns en te d t o the s e a r c h a nd , thu s , tha th e h a d n o v i a b l e F o ur th Am e nd

-8 N o. 09

- 3025

m en t c laim

. Se eU ni t ed S t at e s v. Johns on , 49 5 F
. 3d 536, 54 1- 42 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 7)
. F o r e xa m pl e, a t Koo ns ’ s ch ange-ofple a hea ring, A gent F or em an te sti fi ed that the s ear ch was c o ns en su al

. He e xpl aine d that w he n o ne o fthe officers w ent t o K oo ns’ s pl ace ofem plo ym ent a nd as ked to speak w i th him , “ K oo n s a gr eed to ta l k t o the o ffi cer an d

. . . offe re d to t u r n ov er th e g u n s t o t h e o ffice r if th e o ffi cer woul d dr i ve hi m ho m e i m m edi at ely . The officer drove K oo n s h om e, an d K oons i nv ited offi cers i n s i d e h i s h o u s e s o tha t he c o u l d tu r n o v e r th e fi r e a r ms that he had to them

. ” Koons ackno w l edged i n open co ur t th athe was abl e to he arAge ntF o r eman’ s te st i m o ny and that i t was all t rue, exce pt f ora port i on unre l ate d to th e a lleg ed Fou rt h A m en d m en t v iola tio n . In ad d ition, Koo ns ’ s PS R i nc l ude d the s ame v er si o n o fKoo ns ’s hom e search that A g e n t Forem an testifi ed to at K oons ’s change- of

- ple a hea ring. A t hi s s entencing hearin g, K oo ns acknow l edged thathe ha d a n opportunity t o r ev i ew the PS R an d th at, o th ertha n the o bj ec ti o ns he fi l ed th atwer e unr el at ed t o the s ea r cho fhi s ho m e, the PSR w as “tr ue and accur ate
. ” He al so sta ted i n open cour t, “Ikno w wh at Id i d i s wrong. Ikno w that

. Iadm i tte d that f ro m t h e j u m p abo ut the guns. . . . Itr i ed

— Iknew I ’ d d o n e wr o n g . I t r i e d my b e s t t o c l e a r i t u p by t ur ni ng them o verto the offi cer s w h en they co m e, and they didn’thave to g et a warra nt o r any o fthat

. Ito l d them rig h t a w ay .” Des pi te numer o us o ppo r tu ni ti es , Koo ns no t o nc e i nf o r m ed th e co ur t thatthe o ffi ce r who a ppr o ac he d Koo ns at w ork on A p ril19 fal s e ly claim ed to have a w arr a n t, b r a n d i s h e d a w e a p o n, a n d r e q u i r e d K o o n s t o a c c o mpan y hi m t o Koo ns ’ s ho m e and l ethi m i n. Ra th er, Koo nsN o. 09

- 3025 9

r e pe a t e dl y a c k no wl e dg e d tha th e v o l un t a r i l y c o ns e nt e d. W e t re at sw or n sta tem ents m ade i n open co urt m ost se riou sly an d d em an d th at p ar tie s tell t h e t r u th

. Se e, e . g. , H ut ch i ngs , 618 F.3d at 699 ( “W he n a d istri ct cou rt conducts a Rule 11 col l oquy, i t i s no t putti ng o n a show f o r the de fend an t, the pub l i c, o r a nybo dy el se . The pu rpos e o fa Rule 11 col l oquy i s t o expose coe rc ion o r m i sta ke, and the dist ri ct j ud ge m ust be abl e t o re l y o n the defendant’s sworn test i m ony at that hear i ng. Because the co urt tak es a cri m i nal defendant’s r i ghts at a c h an ge -of-p lea h ea rin g v e r y s er iou sly , i t is rea so n ab le t o e xp e c t, a nd d em and, tha tthe c r i mi na l de fe nd a ntdo so as w ell. Fo r t h a t rea so n, a d efe n d an t is n or m ally bo und b y the r epr es en ta ti o ns he make s to a c o ur t dur i ng th e c o l l o q u y . ” ( i n t e r n a l qu o t a t i o n ma r k s a n d c i t a t i o ns om itted ))
. N onethel ess , K oo ns’ s § 2255 peti ti on cl ai m s f or the fi rst ti m e in the re cor d that pol i ce for ced hi m to co nsent to th e se ar ch o f hi s ho m e. I ft r ue , the e vi den ce f o und dur i ng a n d a s a r e s u l to fth e o ffi c e r ’ s s e a r c h o fK o o n s ’ s h o me

— w hi ch i ncl ud es t h e fi re ar m s Koons w as charg ed w i th i l l eg al l y po ss es sing

— mayh a v e bee n i na dmi s s ib l e a nd , th u s, vu l n e r ab le t o a m ot ion to su p p re ss . Seegene rally U nite d State s v. Ie nco , 18 2 F
. 3d 517, 52 6 ( 7th C ir. 19 99) ( di sc us sing th e ex cl us i o na r y r ul e an d th e f r ui t of the p oisonou s tree d octrine). B ut even i f K oons ’s al legations abou t the search are true , hi s appe ali s f o r ec l o se d b y the f ac t th athe neve r inf or m ed tr i alco unselo fthe f acts gi vi ng r i se to th e a lleg ed Fou rt h A m en d m en t v i o l a tio n . Se eSt r i ck l and, 466 U
. S

. a t 68 9 ( “A f ai r a ss es smento fa tt o r ne y pe r-10 N o. 09

- 3025

W e c ons t ru e Koons ’ s pr o se ple adi ngs l iber al l y a nd fi nd 2 t hathi s s wo r n a ffi da v i ti n c o r p o r a t e s b y r e f e r e n c e th e me m ora n d u m h e su b m itt ed su p p o rt in g h is § 2 2 5 5 p et iti o n . S ee H utc hi ngs , 61 8 F .3d at 69 6 (w riting tha t the d efend an t “p ro p erly incor p orate d b y referenc e hi s M em orand um i nto hi s sworn p e t i t i o n, e s p e c i a l l y c o n s i d e r i n g h i s pr o s e s t a t u s a tth e t i me ofhi s or i gi nalfi l i ng, ” e venthough h is M em or andum was no t sig n ed u n d er p en a lty o f p e rj u ry ). Seege ner al ly A nderso n v . Hardman , 24 1 F
. 3d 5 44 , 54 5 ( 7th Ci r. 20 01 ) ( di s c us s i ng o ur w ill in g n es s to lib er a lly co n str u e p ro se p le a d in g s). f or m ance r equi re s th at e ver y e ff or t be m ade to el i m i na te the di st o r tinge ffec ts o fhinds i g ht, t o r ec o nstr uct t he circu m st ances ofco unsel ’ s chal l enged con d u c t, an d to evaluate the con d uc t from cou ns el’ s perspect i ve a tt h et i me .” (em p h as is a d d ed )). K oo n s fa ils to alle ge i n hi s peti ti on, acc om panyi ng affi davi t, o r anyw here e lse in the r eco rd thathe e ven o nce t ol d tri al counselthe ver si on o fev ents on Ap ri l 19 tha t h e pos i ts o n a ppea l

. To th e co nt r ar y, the t wo mos t r el ev an t

2 p or tio n s o f h is p et itio n d em on st ra te t h a t h e n ev er to ld tr i alco unsel

. Fi rs t, he s tat es i n hi s peti tion t h at “Counsel w as i neffecti ve f oradvi si ng M ova nt to ente r a p l ea of gui l ty, witho ut ch alle ngi ng the ev i dence, wh en he ei ther kn ew , o r r e a s o n a b l y s h o u l d h a v ek n own , thatthe ar re st and subsequent s ear ch w er e warr an tl ess , and f or failin g t o a p p ea l th is m er ito riou s is s u e .” (em p h as is ad d ed ). H e la te r w rit es : I f c oun sel d i d n otkn ow the facts surrou nd ing M ovan t’s w ar ra ntl ess ar re st an d subsequent warr antl ess se ar chN o. 09

- 3025 11

o fhi s ho m e, the n c o uns elwas i ne ffec ti ve f o r f ai l i ng to i nv e s t i g a t e tho s e f a c t s pr i o r t o a dv i s i ng M o v a ntto p lea d gu ilty

. I

f c ou nse l di d kn ow abou t the f acts surr o undi ngthe war r an tl es s a r r es t an d s ubs eque nt w ar ra ntl ess se ar ch ofM ova nt’ s ho m e, then co unsel w as i neffecti ve f orf ai l i ng to chal l enge th e l ega l i ty o fthe a r r es t an d s ea r ch, pr i o r t o a dvi singM o va nt to ple ad gui l ty. (em p ha sis add ed ). Oth err ec o r d e vi den ce a l so i ndi ca te s th atKoo ns ne ve r t o l d t r i alc o uns eltha t t he s ea r chwas no t co ns en su al. Firs t, K oo n s d oe s n otd isp u te t h e c laim s in tr i alc o uns el ’s affi dav i t th athe met wi thKoo ns seve nteen ti m es between J uly30 , 20 07, and J uly7, 20 08, an d tha t he int er vi ewe d e ac h wi tn es s th e g o ve rnment i nt en ded to c al l

. None th el es s, at K oo ns ’ s se nt en cing h e a r i n g, t r i a l c o u n s e l t o l d th e c o u r tth a twh e n t he offic er arr ive d atK oo n s’s w or kp la c e, K oo n s s aid “[ y] ou’ re h er e about the guns; l et’ s g o getthem , ” a nd then “[ h]a nd ed them o veri m m edi ate ly. ” W e fi nd no re aso n in t h e r ec or d to be liev e t h at tria l co u n se l kn ow in gly mi s l e a d the di s t r i c tc o ur t, and Koo ns ma k e s n o a t t e mpt to p ro vid e o n e. Se c on d , in res p on se to K oo n s’s cla im that tr i alco unsel sho uld have o bj ecte d to the l eg ality o f th e s e a rc h, tria l co u n se l’s a ffid av it e x p lain s t h at “itis cl earfro m the case thatM r. Koons t alk ed to pol i ce an d to ok th em t o h is h ou se an d ga ve th em th e g u n s.” A lth o u g h less d escrip tive than w e m ight hop e, th e affi davi t und oubte dly i nd i cate s that K oo ns never tol d t ria l co uns elo fthe a l l eg ed Fou r thAm en dm en t vi o l at i o n.12 N o. 09

- 3025 N ot ab ly, K oo n s’s br iefs o n a p p ea l cla im th at h e t old tr i al co uns el hi s ve r si o n o f th e ev en ts o n Apri l 19 and th at trialcou ns e l d ism issed K oons out of han d as a l iar. But, a s th e f o r eg o i ngdi sc us si o n i nd icates , we fi nd no s u p p o r ti n th e r e c o r d f o r th i s c l a i m. A ccor d in gl y, Koons’ s tw o ar gum ents that he r ecei ved i neffecti ve ass i sta nce o fcou nselar e v acuous. H e fi rs t cl ai m s that t ri alco unselwas i neffec ti ve f orf ai l i ng to in ve st iga te h is a lleg ed Fou rt h A m en d m e n t c laim . “It i s wel l r eco gnize d that c ounselm ust e ngage i n a r easonab l e invest iga tio n orco m e t o a defensibl e deci si on that a par ti cul ari nvest i gat i on i s un n ecessar y. W hen counseldeter m i nes that invest igat i on i s unneces sar y, hi s de c i s i o n ‘ mus tb e di r e c t l y a s s e s s e d fo r r e a s o na bl ene ss in allthe c ircu m stan ces, app lyi ng a heav y m easu re ofdefer ence to c ounsel ’ s j ud gm ents. ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Lathrop , N o. 10

- 1099 , sl i p op. at12 (7th Cir

. M ar . 2, 20 11) ( quoti ng St r i ck l and, 466 U
. S. at 691)
. I t i s a p p ro pri ate to con side r w ha t K o o ns told trialcou ns el w he n d eterm i ni ng t h e rea sonab l eness o ftr i alco unsel ’ s invest i gatio n . Se eSt r i ck l and, 46 6 U .S. at69 1 ( “The r eas onabl eness of c ou n se l’s a c tio n s m ay be d et er m in ed or s u b s t a n tia lly i nfl uenced by th e d efendant’s o w n sta tem ents oracti ons. Counsel ’ s acti ons ar e usual l y b ase d, quit e pr oper l y, o n inf o r m ed st r ateg i c ch o i ce s m ade b y the de fen dan t an d on inform ation s u p p lie d by the de fend an t. I n p arti cul ar, wh at i nvest i gat i on deci si ons ar e r eas onabl e dep en d s criti cally on su ch i nform ation.”). Tr i alc o uns el ’ s i nv es ti g at i o n, wh ic h inc l ude d m ee ting w i th Koons s eve nteen ti m es and i nter vi ew i ng ea ch w i tnessN o. 09

- 3025 13 the g ove rnm ent intended to cal l, was und oubte dlyadeq u at e. See id

. at 68 8-9 1; Lathrop , N o. 10

- 1099 , sl i p op. at12
. The mos t o bv i o us s o ur ce o fi nf o r m at i o n r eg ar di ng th e al l eg ed F o ur thAm en dm en t vi o l at i o n was Koo ns hi m sel f

. ButKoo ns ne ve r i nf o r m ed tr i alc o uns elo fthe all eged Fourth A m en d m en t v io lation, and the record p ro vid es n o in d ica tio n t h at tria l co u n se l sh ou ld or c ou ld have l ear ned the v er si on o fev ents K oo ns posi ts on appeal by doi ng anythi ng m or e than he d id to i nvestig at e t h e c as e. Se eSt r i ck l and, 4 66 U. S

. a t 69 1 (“[ W ] he n a d efe nd an t has gi ven cou ns el r eason to beli eve th at p ursui ng ce rt ai n i nvest i ga tio n s would be frui tl ess o r eve n ha r mfu l, c o u n s e l ’ s f a i l u r e t o p u r s u e th o s e in v e s t i g a t i o ns m ay not l ater be ch all en ged as un r e ason able.”) ; U nited Sta tes v. Fa rr, 297 F.3d 651 , 658 (7th C ir. 2002) (“A n ineffec ti ve a ss i st an ce o fc o uns elc l ai m c anno t r es t upo n c o unse l ’ s all eg ed f ai l ur e to e ng ag e i n a s ca ve ng erhun t f orpote nti al l y e xculpato ryi nfo rm ati on with no detail ed instru ction o n w h a t this i nform ation m ay be or w he re i t m i ght be f ound.” )
. Further, K oo ns f ai l s to suggest parti cul arways i n w hi ch tr i alco unselsho uld have m or e co m ple tel y invest i gat ed the even ts o fA pri l 19
. Eval uati ng tr i al c ounsel ’ s “ conduct fro m [ hi s] per specti ve at the t i m e” ofthe i nvest iga ti on, we si m plyhave no b as i s to c onc l ude tha t hi s i nv es ti g at i o n was c o ns ti tu
ti onal l y defi ci ent. S t r i c k l a nd , 46 6 U .S. at 6 89 ; see also Sm ith v. G aetz , 565 F.3d 346 , 352-53 (7th C ir. 2009). K oo ns n ex t ar gues that tr i alco unselsho uld have fi l ed a m oti on t o su pp re ss the e vi dence thatr esul ted f rom t he al l ege dlyi m properse ar ch ofKoons’ s ho m e. See G entry v. Sev ier, 59 7 F
. 3d 838, 85 1- 52 (7th Ci r. 20 10)14 N o. 09

- 3025 ( ho l di ngtha tc o un s e l ’ s f a i l ur e t o fi l e a mo t i o n t o s up p ress con stitut ed de fi cient assistan ce). A gain, how e v er, si nce Koons n eve r tol d tri alco unselthatpol i ce for ced hi m t o c on sent to the ho m e s ear ch, and, thus, neve r ga ve tr i alco unsel any re aso n to bel i eve thata m oti on to s uppr es s woul d ha ve any c ha nc e o fs ucc es s, t r i alc o unse l ’ s f ai l ur e to s ee ks uppr es si o n was o bj ec ti ve l y r ea so nab le a n d d oe s n otco n st itu te ine ffec tiv e a ss i s t an c e. See St r i ck l and, 46 6 U.S

. at68 9. W e co ncl ud e that th e re c or d fo re cl ose s a ny cl ai m that K oo ns r ecei ved co ns ti tuti onal l y ineffecti ve ass i sta nce d uring the p lea proce ss, or that K oons did not oth erwi s e kn o wi ng l y a n d v o l u n t a r i l y p l e a d g u i l t y . We thus affir m the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s deni alo fKoons’ s habe as pet i ti o n.

B . E v i de nt i a ryHe a r i ng K oo n s a lso arg u es th at th e d ist ric t c ou rterr on eo u sly re fus ed t o conduct an ev i denti ar y hea ring to ev al uate hi s i ne ffec ti ve a ss i st an ce c l ai m . “ The c o ur t sh o ul d g r an t ane vi den ti ar y h earingo n a § 2 25 5 m o ti o n whe n the p et itio n er alleg es fac ts th a t, if p ro ve n, w ou ld en tit le h im to re l i ef

. ” H ut ch i ngs , 6 18 F. 3d at 699 ( i nter nal quotat i on m ar ks and ci tat i on o m i tte d ). B ut co urts m ay “deny an e v i de nt i a r y h e a r i ngwh e r e the mo ti o n, fi l e s , a nd r e c o r ds of t h e c as e c on c lu siv ely sh ow th atth e p ris on er is enti tl ed to no r el i ef

. ” To rza la v. U nited Sta tes , 54 5 F
. 3d 517, 52 5 (7 t h C i r . 2 00 8); 28 U .S.C . § 22 55 (b ); s e eal s o Hutc hi ngs , 618 F.3d a t 69 9- 70 0. Re vi ewi ngf o r abus e o fdi sc r et i o n, H ut ch i ngs , 6 1 8 F .3d 70 0; A lm o na cid v. U nited Sta tes , 47 6N o. 09

- 3025 15 F.3d 518 , 521 (7th C ir. 2007), w e affirm the d istri ct cou rt’s denia l o fKoons’ s m oti on f oran e vi denti ar y hea rin g. As o urdi sc us si on above de m o ns tr at es , the r ec o r d c o nclusively show s tha t K oons i s not en titl ed to rel ief

.

I I I . Concl usio n Forthe f oreg oing re aso ns, we A FFIRM the j ud gm ent o f the di str i ct c ourt
.

4- 28- 11