O'Neil v. United States, No. 19-1422 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of petitioner's motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2255. Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to distribute cocaine.
The court held that the district court did not err in rejecting defendant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel based on counsel's failure to request a Franks hearing where petitioner has not established that the results of his proceedings would have been different even if his counsel requested a Franks hearing or challenged the warrant on probable cause grounds. The court also held that the district court did not err in rejecting defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based on counsel's failure to move to challenge the validity of the search warrant and the existence of probable cause where the magistrate judge's alleged error, even if it is error, did not affect the validity of the warrant; to move to suppress the evidence found on petitioner's cell phones where counsel's failure to raise a novel argument does not render his performance constitutionally ineffective; and to file a motion to suppress his confession where counsel did not act outside the wide range of reasonable professional assistance.
Court Description: [Smith, Author, with Loken and Gruender, Circuit Judges] Prisoner case - Habeas. For the decision in defendant's direct appeal, see U.S. v. O'Neil, 496 Fed. Appx. 694 (8th Cir. 2013); vacated in O'Neil v. U.S., 571 U.S. 801 (2013); affirmed on remand U.S. v. O'Neill, 595 Fed. Appx. 665 (2015). The district court did not err in rejecting O'Neil's claims that his attorney rendered ineffective assistance of counsel: (1) by failing to request a Franks hearing; (2) by failing to move to challenge the validity of the search warrant and the existence of probable cause; (3) by failing to move to suppress the evidence found on his cell phones; and (4) by failing to file a motion to suppress his confession.
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.