Hogan v. Kelley, No. 15-2930 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseLaquince Hogan, convicted of drug-related offenses, appealed the denial of his petition for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254, asserting claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The court concluded that there was no “reasonable probability” that the contents of the Crown Royal bag at issue would have been suppressed had trial counsel filed a motion to suppress because the inevitable-discovery exception would have rendered the bag’s contents admissible. In this case, Hogan suffered no prejudice under Strickland v. Washington and Hogan's ineffective assistance of counsel claim fails. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Wollman, Author, with Arnold and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Prisoner case - Habeas. Even if the search of a Crown Royal bag was outside the scope of the warrant in the matter, there was no reasonable probability the contents of the bag would have been suppressed because the inevitable-discovery exception would have rendered the contents admissible; as a result,counsel's failure to move to suppress the search as outside the scope of the warrant could not have prejudiced Hogan, and the court properly denied his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.
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.