Post-Conviction Relief Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Motion to Suppress
Commonwealth v. Cooley, PICS Case No. 17-1158 (C.P. Lycoming July 13, 2017) Butts, J. (12 pages).
Where the totality of the circumstances indicated a motion to suppress evidence would not have been successful, defendant was not entitled to post-conviction relief for ineffective assistance of counsel.
Defendant was charged with several drug-related crimes. The charges stemmed from a search of defendant's residence after police discovered a number of money orders at another location, all made out to defendant in amounts of $200 or $250. Following a jury trial, defendant was found guilty on all counts, and he was sentenced to a period of 25 to 60 months in a state correctional facility. Defendant did not file a direct appeal.
Defendant filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that his prior attorneys provided ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to file a motion to suppress the evidence obtained in the search of defendant's home on constitutional grounds. The court appointed counsel for defendant to either file an amended petition for post-conviction relief or to file a "no merit" letter. The attorney eventually filed a letter stating defendant would be unsuccessful in seeking post-conviction relief for ineffective assistance of counsel in not pursuing a suppression claim.
In support of his claim of ineffectiveness of counsel, defendant argued that simply finding money orders made out in his name was not enough to conclude that a reasonable suspicion existed to search his home. The court disagreed, because other factors supported the reasonableness of the search. Defendant was a known drug user and dealer. Police wanted to investigate where the money was coming from, because the person who had possession of the money orders was not employed and was on parole for drug-related crimes. At the time of the search in question, defendant was being supervised because he had a history of drug dealing. One of the police officers involved in the investigation had been defendant's supervising parole officer. The facts surrounding the search of defendant's home, including the backgrounds of the sender and recipient of the money orders were sufficient to result in the denial of any motion to suppress if one had been filed on defendant's behalf.
The court concluded defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel had no merit. Because the motion to suppress was baseless, defendant was not prejudiced by the failure of counsel to file a motion to suppress. The court ordered that defendant's petition for post-conviction relief should be dismissed.