Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to file pretrial motions to suppress & to review physical evidence; Failure to make a meritless motion

Concluding that a motion to suppress would have been meritless, the court rejected defendant’s claim that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file such a motion. Further, his assertion that trial counsel did not inspect physical evidence was not supported by the record. Thus, the court affirmed his convictions of operating a chop shop, using a computer to commit a crime, receiving and concealing stolen property, receiving and concealing a stolen motor vehicle, and felony-firearm. It first noted that the record of a pretrial hearing indicated that defendant and his trial “counsel both were given the opportunity to examine the engine and the transmission” and thus, the record did not support his contention that trial counsel did not inspect them. As to his claim that trial counsel should have moved to suppress them, he appeared to argue that trial counsel should have successfully shown “that the evidence was false and should have succeeded in having the false evidence suppressed.” But this was more a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence than a claim of ineffective assistance. He also framed as an ineffective assistance claim a challenge to an agent’s (L) “testimony that the engine was designated as stolen, asserting that [L] also testified that the engine was later designated in LEIN as recovered,” and that trial counsel should have used this to persuade the trial court to suppress the testimony. But he did not explain or offer supporting authority as to “how these challenges to the accuracy of the evidence, typically topics for cross-examination, would have enabled his trial counsel to successfully move to suppress the evidence.” As to his argument that trial counsel should have challenged “by motion the actions of officers who allegedly conducted a warrantless search at the time of” his arrest, the record supported the trial court’s findings that defendant gave them consent to enter the property and that his Fourth Amendment rights were not violated. An officer “testified that defendant invited him onto his property to view the engine and transmission and removed the tarp, believing [him] to be a potential buyer. Because defendant consented to the officers’ presence on his property and showed the officers the stolen auto parts, a motion to suppress the seized auto parts would have been meritless.”