Opinion ID: 2599880
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Failure to Challenge Search Warrant; Ineffective Assistance (Lewis)

Text: Lewis contends he received constitutionally deficient representation because counsel did not move before trial to exclude evidence retrieved from his home, to wit, the Mossberg shotgun and owner's manual, and articles of black clothing that tested positive for gunshot residue. Counsel should have tried to quash the search warrant, Lewis claims, because the affidavit supporting it contained false statements. Specifically, he asserts the warrant affidavit falsely attributed to Mizell a statement that Lewis possesse[d] a long rifle or shotgun. Lewis relies on police interview statements and on preliminary hearing testimony indicating that Mizell never saw or knew about any shotguns in Lewis's possession. Ineffective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment requires deficient performance under an objective standard of professional reasonableness. It also entails prejudice under a test of reasonable probability of an adverse effect on the outcome. ( Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 687-688, 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674.) In addition, a defendant has a limited right to challenge the veracity of statements contained in an affidavit of probable cause made in support of the issuance of a search warrant. . . . [T]he lower court must conduct an evidentiary hearing [only if] a defendant makes a substantial showing that (1) the affidavit contains statements that are deliberately false or were made in reckless disregard of the truth; and (2) the affidavit's remaining contents, after the false statements are excised, are insufficient to support a finding of probable cause. . . . Innocent or negligent misrepresentations will not defeat a warrant. [Citation.] `Moreover, there is a presumption of validity with respect to the affidavit. . . .' ( People v. Panah (2005) 35 Cal.4th 395, 456, 25 Cal.Rptr.3d 672, 107 P.3d 790, citing Franks v. Delaware (1978) 438 U.S. 154, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667; accord, People v. Bradford (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1229, 1297, 65 Cal. Rptr.2d 145, 939 P.2d 259; see People v. Luttenberger (1990) 50 Cal.3d 1, 9-10, 265 Cal.Rptr. 690, 784 P.2d 633.) As pertinent here, the police executed a search warrant of Lewis's home. The warrant authorized the seizure of, among other things, any 12-gauge shotguns, shotgun ammunition, and black clothing. The police found such clothing, which came into evidence. At the time of Lewis's arrest, he was carrying the barrel of the Mossberg shotgun. The rest of the gun was recovered on Lewis's bed during service of the search warrant. In the challenged affidavit, Detective Bird stated that two people had been murdered by shotgun blasts. The affidavit also described accounts of the clothing the assailants wore, and explained that Mizell, the intended murder victim, told police that Lewis possesses a long rifle or shotgun, along with a black Ninja suit complete with hood. In arguing that the affidavit contained false statements, Lewis observes that Mizell did not mention Lewis's possession of any kind of gun to police in a statement she gave shortly after the murders. He also observes that she testified at the preliminary hearing that he did not have a shotgun in the house. However, Lewis has not shown that Detective Bird lied about what Mizell said concerning long guns in Lewis's possession. Nor has Lewis shown that the detective knew Mizell was lying or mistaken, even assuming her statement to him was untrue. Under Franks v. Delaware, supra, 438 U.S. 154, 98 S.Ct. 2674, and its progeny, the showing is insufficient. ( People v. Panah, supra, 35 Cal.4th 395, 456, 25 Cal.Rptr.3d 672, 107 P.3d 790.) Lewis further fails to establish that any deficient performance was prejudicial or that the result would have changed had counsel acted differently. The alleged falsehood was neither necessary ( Franks v. Delaware, supra, 438 U.S. 154, 156, 98 S.Ct. 2674) nor material ( People v. Bradford, supra, 15 Cal.4th 1229, 1297, 65 Cal. Rptr.2d 145, 939 P.2d 259) to the probable cause finding. The affidavit amply justified the search of Lewis's house. In addition to Lewis's history of violence against Mizell and her family, including her aunt, Betty Bates, the affidavit alleged that (1) a small gray or silver car similar to Lewis's car was seen at both the Bates Buick shooting and the church, (2) expended Winchester 12-gauge shotgun shells were found at both the Bates shooting and the church, and (3) Lewis owned a black, hooded ninja suit. We find no ineffective assistance.