Court Opinion

ID: 9559280
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:25:30.686089+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:10:31.921764
License: Public Domain

LANSING, Judge,
dissenting.
Follinus’s claim that his defense attorney should have requested a Franks hearing is not based only upon an allegation that the information utilized to support the search warrant was obtained by the premature entry of Follinus’s residence. The allegations of his post-conviction relief application also include the assertion that, “The affiant presented deliberately false information regarding the weapons and chemicals on the premises, as well as the previous conviction record of the suspect in order to influence the magistrate in issuance of the warrant.” Having reviewed the transcript of the suppression healing, I find that Follinus’s counsel did not cross-examine the State’s witnesses at all regarding the veracity of information given to the magistrate in support of the request for a warrant. The focus of the suppression motion was not the validity of the warrant but the fact that law enforcement officers had entered Follinus’s residence before the warrant was issued. Therefore, I conclude the record does not demonstrate that Folli-nus received a Franks healing within the context of his motion to suppress. For this reason, I would vacate the order summarily dismissing the application for post-conviction relief and would remand for further proceedings.