Opinion ID: 1721127
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Whether counsel rendered ineffective assistance during the suppression hearing.

Text: Appellant argues that counsel failed to present proper legal grounds for the suppression of his confession. During the suppression hearing, Appellant testified that he gave a full confession to police on April 3, 1982. In response to questioning, Appellant stated he could not remember whether his rights had been read to him prior to giving the statement. He did testify, however, that when he asked for his lawyer before signing the waiver of rights form, police told him that a lawyer would only take his money and urged him to sign the consent form. Appellant proceeded to give a full confession, and recounted the story not only to several individuals at the police station, but also in phone conversations throughout the day. The Commonwealth, in turn, presented several witnesses who testified that Appellant was given Miranda rights at least two times prior to questioning. Counsel did file a pretrial motion to suppress all statements made by Appellant on the grounds they were made under duress without a knowing and voluntary waiver of Appellant's right to counsel, and to remain silent. Further, it is clear that counsel elicited Appellant's testimony during the suppression hearing in order to show that Appellant had asked for a lawyer before giving his statement, and thus had invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege. However, the trial court conducted the suppression hearing in accordance with RCr 9.78 and found that there was substantial evidence to admit the confession. We are unpersuaded by Appellant's claim that his confession should have been suppressed because it violated his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights, and was not voluntary because of his mental illness. The admissibility of the confession was addressed by this Court on direct appeal, wherein we held that although a portion of the transcript of the suppression hearing was missing from the record, there was evidence that the confession was voluntarily given. [W]e are of the opinion that all of the circumstances bolster the ruling of the trial court. Harper clearly was given his Miranda rights at least twice before making the statement. Harper, supra at 669. Appellant's claim can be resolved from the record and does not merit an evidentiary hearing.