Suppression and Ineffective Assistance
Officers searched Sonny Scott after conducting an investigatory stop and found a firearm and some drugs on him. Scott was later charged with felony firearm possession, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g) and 924(a)(2). He wanted to contest the lawfulness of the stop, and told his lawyer to file a motion to suppress. His lawyer didn’t do so. He later pleaded guilty, and was sentenced to 100 months in prison.
Scott later filed a Section 2255 petition, alleging that his lawyer was ineffective for failing to file a motion to suppress. His attorney cited two reasons for not doing so: (1) she didn’t believe the motion would be successful; and (2) she was concerned that information about a hand-to-hand drug transaction would come out in a suppression hearing, which could have subjected Scott to drug-related charges.
The district court found that a motion to suppress might have been meritorious. It also found, however, that Scott’s attorney had made the strategic decision to forego a suppression motion to avoid negative consequences.
The Fifth Circuit denied Scott’s appeal, determining that his attorney’s decision not to fully investigate the stop was part of a defensive strategy to proceed with the plea process and limit Scott’s exposure to enhanced sentencing or additional drug-related charges.