Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 10-7315
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(0:09-cv-01444-TLW)
Submitted:
Decided:
August 9, 2011
PER CURIAM:
William
Richard
Hunt
appeals
the
district
courts
ineffective
hearing
assistance
and
at
of
his
counsel
South
both
Carolina
at
his
trial
suppression
for
marijuana
purchases
of
marijuana
from
Hunt.
After
the
home,
purchases,
describing
and
also
in
stating
his
that
affidavit
he
had
the
controlled
interviewed
Hunts
fifteen
described
by
pounds
the
of
marijuana
informant.
In
2
hidden
in
the
toolbox
as
addition,
law
enforcement
The
motion
was
denied,
and
Hunt
was
ultimately
Hunt
did
not
appeal,
he
did
move
pertinent
failing
to
allegedly
part,
that
investigate
provided
trial
counsel
Marberts
misleading
was
claims,
information
for
post
He argued,
ineffective
that
to
for
Marbert
the
had
magistrate
income.
The
PCR
court
denied
relief,
and
Hunt
was
petitioned
the
district
court
pursuant
to
28
He made the
district
court
adopted
that
recommendation.
The
court
also
record.
is
available
decision
was
under
contrary
2254
to,
28 U.S.C. 2254(e)(1).
only
or
if
the
involved
state
an
courts
unreasonable
state
established
federal
court
law
decision
if
the
is
contrary
state
court
28 U.S.C.
to
clearly
arrives
at
[the
Supreme
Court]
indistinguishable facts.
412-13
(2000).
has
on
set
of
materially
state
court
decision
is
an
unreasonable
Id. at 413.
first
prong
of
Strickland,
4
Hunt
must
demonstrate
Under
that
counsels
performance
reasonableness
688.
under
fell
below
prevailing
an
objective
professional
standard
norms.
of
Id.
at
the
different.
result
Id.
at
of
the
694.
proceeding
would
reasonable
have
probability
been
is
I.
Hunt
first
claims
Suppression
that
counsel
was
ineffective
for
In reviewing the
United States v. Grossman, 400 F.3d 212, 217 (4th Cir. 2005).
When
reviewing
the
probable
cause
supporting
warrant,
magistrate
who
issued
the
warrant.
United
States
We afford great
v.
United
In order to
must
false
first
make
statement
substantial
knowingly
and
preliminary
showing
intentionally,
or
with
must
be
Id. at 155-56.
essential
to
the
probable
cause
of
probable
cause,
no
hearing
is
required.
United
States v. Colkley, 899 F.2d 297, 300 (4th Cir. 1990) (quoting
Franks, 438 U.S. at 171-72).
Even
assuming
that
Hunt
is
correct
that
Marbert
officers
coordinated
two
controlled
purchases
the
of
Law
controlled
purchases
were
recorded
and
In
the
informant arranged for the purchases with Hunt over the phone in
6
mind
the
our
deferential
review
of
state
court
judgment,
we
II.
Trial
adduced
without merit.
against
Hunt,
we
find
this
claim
court
are
adequately
and
argument
presented
would
not
in
aid
the
the
materials
decisional
process.
AFFIRMED