ILNews

7th Circuit rejects ineffective trial assistance claim

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld the denial of a defendant’s motion to vacate his guilty plea, claiming ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The judges found the record foreclosed any claim that the man’s attorney was constitutionally ineffective or that the man didn’t otherwise knowingly and voluntarily plead guilty.

Police received a tip that Andrew Koons had a stolen vehicle. Police went to his home, where the stolen car was parked, but Koons wasn’t home. A neighbor told police that Koons had participated in a firearms transaction with him. Police then went to Koons’ workplace, where Koons voluntarily offered to go home with the officers and retrieve the guns. He allowed the officers into his home to do so.

Koons was charged with being a felon in possession and at no point during his change-of-plea hearing or during his sentencing hearing did Koons dispute the evidence or testimony presented. After he was sentenced, Koons filed a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2255 to vacate his conviction and sentencing, claiming his trial counsel was constitutionally deficient because he failed to investigate the potential Fourth Amendment claim Koons first brought up in this petition.

It wasn’t until his petition to vacate his conviction that Koons alleged the police told him at his workplace that they had a warrant to search his home and he had to return home and let them in. Koons also argued that the officer brandished a weapon when Koons expressed unwillingness.

The District Court denied the motion, and the 7th Circuit affirmed in Andrew C. Koons v. United States of America, No. 09-3025. They found no evidence that his attorney’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, as defined in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 686 (1984).

Except for his petition, the evidence unequivocally supports the government’s version of the events that Koons voluntarily consented to the search and had no viable Fourth Amendment claim. Koons never informed the court that the officer allegedly showed a weapon to coerce him into returning home, or claimed to have a warrant, wrote Judge Joel Flaum.

In fact, Koons’ petition is the first time on record that he raises those claims. He never informed his attorney of the facts giving rise to the alleged Fourth Amendment violation. The judges found the trial counsel’s investigation, which included meeting with Koons 17 times and interviewing witnesses that the government intended to call, was adequate.

The judges also affirmed the District Court’s denial of Koons’ motion for an evidentiary hearing.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The fee increase would be livable except for the 11% increase in spending at the Disciplinary Commission. The Commission should be focused on true public harm rather than going on witch hunts against lawyers who dare to criticize judges.

  2. Marijuana is safer than alcohol. AT the time the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act was enacted all major pharmaceutical companies in the US sold marijuana products. 11 Presidents of the US have smoked marijuana. Smoking it does not increase the likelihood that you will get lung cancer. There are numerous reports of canabis oil killing many kinds of incurable cancer. (See Rick Simpson's Oil on the internet or facebook).

  3. The US has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prisoners. Far too many people are sentenced for far too many years in prison. Many of the federal prisoners are sentenced for marijuana violations. Marijuana is safer than alcohol.

  4. My daughter was married less than a week and her new hubbys picture was on tv for drugs and now I havent't seen my granddaughters since st patricks day. when my daughter left her marriage from her childrens Father she lived with me with my grand daughters and that was ok but I called her on the new hubby who is in jail and said didn't want this around my grandkids not unreasonable request and I get shut out for her mistake

  5. From the perspective of a practicing attorney, it sounds like this masters degree in law for non-attorneys will be useless to anyone who gets it. "However, Ted Waggoner, chair of the ISBA’s Legal Education Conclave, sees the potential for the degree program to actually help attorneys do their jobs better. He pointed to his practice at Peterson Waggoner & Perkins LLP in Rochester and how some clients ask their attorneys to do work, such as filling out insurance forms, that they could do themselves. Waggoner believes the individuals with the legal master’s degrees could do the routine, mundane business thus freeing the lawyers to do the substantive legal work." That is simply insulting to suggest that someone with a masters degree would work in a role that is subpar to even an administrative assistant. Even someone with just a certificate or associate's degree in paralegal studies would be overqualified to sit around helping clients fill out forms. Anyone who has a business background that they think would be enhanced by having a legal background will just go to law school, or get an MBA (which typically includes a business law class that gives a generic, broad overview of legal concepts). No business-savvy person would ever seriously consider this ridiculous master of law for non-lawyers degree. It reeks of desperation. The only people I see getting it are the ones who did not get into law school, who see the degree as something to add to their transcript in hopes of getting into a JD program down the road.

ADVERTISEMENT