Anderson, Jr. v. United States, No. 12-2566 (8th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CasePetitioner, convicted of a drug offense, appealed the district court's dismissal of his motion for post-conviction relief under 28 U.S.C. 2255. Plaintiff alleged that his counsel was ineffective in failing to move to suppress evidence and to seek a hearing based on alleged false statements by a police officer in a search warrant. Plaintiff contended that counsel should have moved for a hearing pursuant to Franks v. Delaware, alleging that an officer stated falsely in his affidavit that petitioner's trash cans were located at the curb. The court concluded that counsel reasonably could have concluded that petitioner's allegations were insufficient to make the "substantial preliminary showing" that would trigger a Franks hearing. Accordingly, the court concluded that the district court did not err in dismissing petitioner's section 2255 motion without a hearing because even accepting his allegations as true, counsel's performance did not fall below an objective standard of reasonableness. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court.
Court Description: Habeas Case - motion to vacate. On claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to file a motion to suppress and move for a hearing pursuant to Franks v. Delaware based on officer's false affidavit that trash cans were located at the curb, counsel was not deficient for declining to file a Franks motion because counsel could have reasonably conclude that evidence showing that the trash was not at the curb would meet Franks threshold. Even if trash cans were located within the curtilage, Anderson did not allege the cans were inaccessible to members of the public and thus there is no reasonable expectation of privacy; counsel is not ineffective for failing to pursue a motion to suppress that he reasonably believes would be futile. District court did not abuse its discretion in denying motion to alter the judgment or reopen the judgment because the evidence could have been offered earlier.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.