Opinion ID: 3061862
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Report & Recommendation

Text: The magistrate judge issued a report (“R&R”) recommending that Simpson’s § 2255 motion be granted. The R&R determined that the warrantless seizure of the drugs was not justified by the plain view doctrine or exigent circumstances. The magistrate judge did not explicitly reconcile the conflict between Morrison’s and Simpson’s testimony about where Simpson told Morrison he was living. Rather, the magistrate judge appeared to assume that even if Simpson told Morrison he was living at 2467 Floyd Road, Morrision was ineffective because: (1) Morrison never interviewed Defendant Simpson’s aunt or uncle; (2) Morrison never determined the living arrangements at 925 Cooley Drive; (3) Simpson “may have been reluctant to admit that he was residing at 925 Cooley Drive on May 10, 2001 because he believed that such an admission would more definitely connect him to the 12.8 grams of cocaine base seized there,” but “a reasonably competent defense counsel would have explained to [Simpson], . . . that he could move to suppress evidence of the 12.8 grams of cocaine base if he had a legitimate expectation of privacy in that residence, i.e., if he was residing at 925 Cooley Drive or was a guest of the owner or then current occupant on May 10, 2001”; and (4) it appeared Morrison did not provide such an explanation and “made no real effort to determine” Simpson’s standing to file a motion to suppress 6 because he “simply did not believe that such a motion had any chance of success, regardless of whether [Simpson] had standing to file it or not.” (Emphasis added). The R&R concluded that Morrison’s failure to investigate Simpson’s standing was unreasonable and prejudiced Simpson because there was a reasonable probability that a motion to suppress would have been successful.