Opinion ID: 1201062
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: failure to move to suppress statements

Text: Storm asserts that his arrest without a warrant violated his constitutional rights concerning unreasonable search and seizure. He further asserts that he asked for counsel during his interrogation but that interrogation continued and his statements were elicited in violation of his constitutional right to counsel. Storm then asserts: It is clear from the above that defense counsel's failure to file a motion to suppress was deficient representation and prejudicial. Appellant's Brief, p. 30. In his affidavit, Storm's trial counsel testified: In your affiant's preparation of Rick Storm's case for jury trial, your affiant reviewed, among other things, all of the police reports and preliminary hearing transcript. Based upon review of the evidence, your affiant could find no basis or reason to file a Motion to suppress statements made by Rick Storm to the policy officers following his arrest. That is why a suppression motion was not filed in Rick Storm's case. R., p. 80. The district court observed: In this case the petitioner's attorney said in his deposition that he did not consider a motion to suppress or other pretrial motion necessary. The petitioner has introduced no evidence to rebut the presumption that this decision was reasonable. There is no allegation or showing that the attorney was ignorant of the law, or that he was prepared inadequately on this issue. Consequently, the petitioner did not receive ineffective assistance concerning the need for pretrial motions. R., p. 97 (emphasis added). We agree with the district court's conclusions.