Opinion ID: 1940588
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Abandoning Motion To Suppress Based On Involuntary Consent

Text: Luna signed a consent to search his home and automobile. As a result of this search, clothing embedded with microscopic glass fragments was discovered. An expert witness called on behalf of the State testified that the glass fragments matched the glass of a window smashed in at the scene of the crime. This was the only direct evidence linking Luna to the crime. Luna's original counsel made a pretrial motion to suppress the glass fragment evidence on the basis Luna was coerced into signing the consent form. Roubideaux made a similar motion to suppress (not being aware at that time of the signed consent), but formally withdrew it prior to trial. Luna argues he was coerced into signing the consent form, and that Roubideaux was ineffective by withdrawing the motion to suppress. He claims his consent was coerced for generally the same circumstances we described in Luna I. Namely, force or coercive surroundings, promises, threats, verbal abuse and other illegal police actions ... that his mental and emotional state of mind negated the voluntariness of the signed consent and furthermore that he was not properly advised or Mirandized prior to his signing the consent. 378 N.W.2d at 235. The State argued at the habeas corpus hearing that we addressed this argument in Luna I and the issue is therefore res judicata. The trial court rejected this argument, and we agree with its reasoning. As we observed in Luna I, Strickland -styled claims ordinarily will not be reviewed on direct appeal. The review in such instances is limited to determining whether representation was `so casual that the trial record evidences a manifest usurpation of appellant's constitutional rights.' State v. Tchida, 347 N.W.2d 338, 339 (S.D.1984) (quoting State v. Phipps, 318 N.W.2d 128, 131 (S.D.1982)). Since our review in Luna I was limited to a search for a manifest usurpation, it is still open for debate whether trial counsel's performance failed the Strickland standards. We therefore will proceed to the merits of Luna's current argument. In Luna I, we rejected the argument that Roubideaux' withdrawal of the motion constituted a manifest usurpation, because this action was consistent with the trial strategy of attempting to show Luna's innocence by demonstrating his cooperation with the police. Luna essentially now argues our reasoning was incorrect because even had the motion to suppress been pursued, the jury would not have been aware of the effort to suppress. Thus, obtaining a ruling on the motion would not have detracted from the cooperativeness defense. We disagree with this argument because had the motion to suppress been pursued, the prosecution would then have had the right to introduce that fact before the jury to rebut Luna's evidence that he fully cooperated with law enforcement officers. State v. Vega, 163 Conn. 304, 306 A.2d 855 (1972); People v. Sturgis, 58 Ill.2d 211, 317 N.E.2d 545 (1974), cert. denied, 420 U.S. 936, 95 S.Ct. 1144, 43 L.Ed.2d 412; People v. Sturgis, 14 Ill.App.3d 181, 302 N.E.2d 114 (1973); State v. Campbell, 294 N.W.2d 803 (Iowa 1980); Nelson v. State, 607 S.W.2d 554 (Tex.Crim.App.1980). Also, in furtherance of his cooperation defense, Luna testified at trial that he willingly signed the consent form. In light of this strategy, Roubideaux could not be expected to have Luna testify at the suppression hearing that he was coerced into signing the form. Indeed, had he attempted to testify as to his cooperation at trial, he would have been subject to impeachment by his inconsistent suppression hearing statements. Id. Roubideaux's failure to pursue the motion is therefore a proper trial tactic which this court will not second guess. See State v. Dornbusch, 384 N.W.2d 682 (1986); Woods, supra . Alternatively, even were we to assume Roubideaux's withdrawal of the motion amounted to deficient representation, we would not reverse the habeas corpus court because the deficiency would have been nonprejudicial. As the United States Supreme Court has specifically stated: Where defense counsel's failure to litigate a Fourth Amendment claim competently is the principal allegation of ineffectiveness, the defendant must also prove that his Fourth Amendment claim is meritorious and that there is a reasonable probability that the verdict would have been different absent the excludable evidence in order to demonstrate actual prejudice. Kimmelman, 477 U.S. at ___, 106 S.Ct. at 2583, 91 L.Ed.2d at 319. See also High Elk v. Solem, 804 F.2d 496 (8th Cir.1986). Roubideaux testified at the habeas corpus hearing that one reason he withdrew the motion to suppress was that he believed the motion would be denied. It is important to note that Luna did not inform Roubideaux that he signed the consent to search until after Roubideaux made a motion to suppress the evidence. Even after learning of Luna's consent, Roubideaux considered pursuing the motion under the theory the consent was given involuntarily, but ultimately decided to withdraw the motion because he was convinced this effort would be fruitless. Roubideaux stated his reasons for this conclusion at the habeas corpus hearing. [I]n [Luna's] case, he's intelligent, he's been around, he's been in the service, we couldn't convince anybody that he was imposed upon whatsoever. In fact, the totality of the evidence showed that he [signed the consent] not only voluntarily, but willingly and purposely in an attempt to cooperate with the officers to show that he was innocent.... Also, Luna, as stated earlier, testified at the criminal trial that he signed the consent voluntarily. After relating that he had read the consent prior to signing it, Luna's testimony continued: Q. Can you remember anything that it said? A. Yes, sir, just that I gave them my consent to search my apartment and my vehicle and searching anything they wanted, I guess. Q. Were you quite willing to sign that? A. Well, I was, yes. We must presume Luna was telling the truth and would have testified similarly at a suppression hearing. Furthermore, Luna was present at the habeas corpus hearing and had opportunity there to meet his burden of proving a meritorious Fourth Amendment claim by relating the circumstances which supposedly rendered his signing the consent involuntary. He did not testify at that hearing, however. Luna has failed to show a meritorious Fourth Amendment claim and he therefore has not demonstrated he was prejudiced by counsel's abandoning the motion. Prior to leaving this issue, one final observation bears mention. This case is not like Kimmelman, supra, where defense counsel simply by ignorance failed to file a motion to suppress certain evidence. Here, counsel highly experienced in conducting criminal defenses filed a motion to suppress. However, he then chose to withdraw the motion after considering the pros and cons of the matter. Counsel reasonably concluded that foregoing the motion was in the line of defense best suited to successfully defend the charges against his client. Under the highly deferential standard of review applicable, we may not hold that Roubideaux' choice was constitutionally defective.