Willsey
United States v. Willsey
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM ***
Martin Willsey appeals the denial of his motion for post-conviction relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 . We affirm for the following reasons:
1. Willsey complains that his counsel was ineffective in failing to move to suppress confessions given in three interviews, and failing to move to suppress evidence gathered pursuant to search warrants for his vehicle and home. The search warrants were obtained through affidavits relying in part on the first of the three interviews.
2. To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, the defendant must show that counsel’s performance was deficient and that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). The first prong “requires showing that counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as ‘counsel’ guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment.” Id. Under the first prong, Strickland recognizes that “judicial scrutiny of counsel’s performance must be highly deferential,” and that *912 “a court must indulge a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance.” Id. at…