Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

lawyerpleamotionfelony
pleamotionrespondent

Related Cases

Kilopass Technology Inc. v. Sidense Corp., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2010 WL 5141843
View Case »
Koen Book Distributors, Inc. v. Powell, Trachtman, Logan, Carrle, Bowman & Lombardo, P.C., 212 F.R.D. 283
View Case »
Schreiber v. Rowe, 814 So.2d 396, 27 Fla. L. Weekly S248
View Case »
Wiesmueller v. Kosobucki, 513 F.3d 784
View Case »
Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308, 127 S.Ct. 2499, 168 L.Ed.2d 179, 75 USLW 4462, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 94,335, 07 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7139, 2007 Daily Journal D.A.R. 9258, 20 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 374
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Premo v. Moore, 562 U.S. 115, 131 S.Ct. 733, 178 L.Ed.2d 649, 79 USLW 4038, 11 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 714, 2011 Daily Journal D.A.R. 911, 22 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 749

Facts

Randy Moore and two accomplices attacked Kenneth Rogers, ultimately killing him. After the incident, Moore confessed to his brother and the girlfriend of one accomplice, and later to police. On the advice of his counsel, Moore pleaded no contest to felony murder in exchange for a minimum sentence. He later claimed ineffective assistance of counsel, arguing that his lawyer failed to file a motion to suppress his confession, which he believed would have affected his decision to plead.

Respondent Moore and two accomplices attacked and bloodied Kenneth Rogers, tied him up, and threw him in the trunk of a car before driving into the Oregon countryside, where Moore fatally shot him. Afterwards, Moore and one accomplice told Moore's brother and the accomplice's girlfriend that they had intended to scare Rogers, but that Moore had accidentally shot him.

Issue

Did the state postconviction court unreasonably apply federal law in concluding that Moore's counsel did not provide ineffective assistance by failing to file a motion to suppress his confession?

Did the state postconviction court unreasonably apply federal law in concluding that Moore's counsel did not provide ineffective assistance by failing to file a motion to suppress his confession?

Rule

Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), federal habeas relief may not be granted unless the state court's decision involved an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, specifically the standard for ineffective assistance of counsel established in Strickland v. Washington.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), federal habeas relief may not be granted with respect to any claim a state court has adjudicated on the merits unless, among other exceptions, the state-court decision denying relief involves 'an unreasonable application' of 'clearly established Federal law, as determined by' this Court.

Analysis

The Supreme Court found that the state court's conclusion that counsel's performance was adequate was reasonable, as the suppression motion would have likely been futile given Moore's other admissible confession. The court emphasized the need for deference to counsel's strategic choices during plea negotiations, noting that the risks and uncertainties involved in such decisions must be respected.

The state court would not have been unreasonable to accept as a justification for counsel's action that suppression would have been futile in light of Moore's other admissible confession to two witnesses. This explanation confirms that counsel's representation was adequate under Strickland, so it is unnecessary to consider the reasonableness of his other justification—that a suppression motion would have failed.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit's decision, holding that the state court's findings regarding ineffective assistance of counsel were not unreasonable applications of federal law.

Moore was not entitled to the habeas relief ordered by the Ninth Circuit.

Who won?

The State prevailed in the case because the Supreme Court found that the state postconviction court's conclusions regarding ineffective assistance of counsel were reasonable and consistent with federal law.

The Supreme Court, Justice Kennedy, held that: state postconviction court's conclusion that defense counsel did not perform deficiently, as element of ineffective assistance of counsel, in advising inmate to enter a quick no-contest plea, without counsel having brought a motion to suppress one of inmate's confessions, was not an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court.

You must be