Opinion ID: 2070003
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Pro Se Claims of Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

Text: Finally, Sanchez-Rengifo argues that the trial court erred in denying, without a hearing, his pro se claims that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move to suppress tangible evidence and for failing to introduce the complainant's 911 call. He contends that the 911 call contained an initial description of the assailant that was inconsistent with, or could cast doubt upon N.V.'s testimony. He asserts, without argument, that the trial court erred in denying a hearing on [his] claim that counsel should have filed a motion to suppress.... The trial court rejected each of these claims. It concluded that [t]rial counsel thoroughly challenged the identification evidence at trial[,] and the record did not show the alleged inconsistency between the initial description and Sanchez-Rengifo's physical characteristic and that there was no showing of prejudice. As to the claim based upon the suppression issue, the trial court concluded that a motion to suppress the clothing recovered from his girlfriend's apartment on the grounds that it exceeded the scope of the search would have been futile. Trial counsel explained that he could find no grounds on which to file a suppression motion, and Sanchez-Rengifo has offered none. Prejudice cannot be shown where the motion, if filed, would not have been successful. See Washington v. United States, 689 A.2d 568, 572 (D.C.1997) (citing Gooch v. United States, 609 A.2d 259, 265 (D.C.1992)). The record supports the trial court's rulings on each of these claims. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment and order appealed from hereby are Affirmed.