Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Edmond

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division

August 7, 2016

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
v.
TRALVIS EDMOND

          United States of America, Plaintiff, represented by James Michael Kuhn, United States Attorney's Office & Rajnath P. Laud, United States Attorney's Office, N.d. Ill..

          Tralvis Edmond, Defendant, represented by Lazar Pol Raynal, McDermott, Will & Emery LLP, Peter Beauregard Allport, McDermott, Will & Emery LLP & Sheila M. Prendergast, Mcdermott Will & Emery.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          MATTHEW F. KENNELLY, District Judge.

         Tralvis Edmond is serving a term of imprisonment following his conviction on drug and gun charges. He has moved under 28 U.S.C. ยง 2255 to set aside his conviction and sentence, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. One of Edmond's claims is that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to file a motion to suppress evidence seized via the execution of a search warrant at 736 N. Ridgeway in Chicago. The Court concluded that an evidentiary hearing was needed on this claim. By agreement of the parties and the Court, the hearing was initially limited to the question of whether counsel's failure to file a motion to suppress was objectively unreasonable. The issue of prejudice was reserved for later determination. The hearing took place on June 16, 2016. This constitutes the Court's findings of fact and conclusions of law.

         Facts

         On May 20, 2015, Chicago police officers executed a warrant obtained by officer John Frano. Frano obtained the warrant based on information from a confidential informant. In the affidavit that he submitted to obtain the warrant, Frano said that on May 18, an informant told him that on an unspecified date, he was at Edmond's residence at 736 N. Ridgeway and observed him handling significant quantities of narcotics packaged for sale, some of which the informant purchased. Frano further stated in his affidavit that on May 18, he drove the informant past 736 N. Ridgeway, and the informant pointed out the basement apartment as the location where he had purchased the narcotics from Edmond. When officers executed the warrant on May 20, Edmond was not present, but his girlfriend Antonia Penister was. The officers recovered two loaded firearms and significant amounts of heroin and crack cocaine packaged for distribution. Penister told the officers that she and Edmond lived in the apartment together and that Edmond had recently purchased the firearms after being robbed.

         Trial counsel did not file a motion to suppress the evidence seized pursuant to the warrant. Edmond contends that trial counsel should have moved to suppress on the ground that (perhaps among other things) the information used to obtain the warrant was stale. In response to Edmond's contention to this effect in his section 2255 motion, the government argued that counsel had a good strategic basis not to file a motion to suppress, specifically, that to support the motion, Edmond would have had to testify, and his testimony could have provided leads that the government could have used at trial to buttress its contention that he possessed the firearms and narcotics found in the apartment. The Court rejected this argument as speculative, and as it turns out trial counsel did not take this point into consideration at all. See June 16, 2016 Tr. at 54-55. Rather, counsel determined not to file a motion based exclusively on his belief that Edmond lacked standing to challenge the search. Edmond argues that this counsel's decision was based on a misunderstanding of the law.

         Both trial counsel and Edmond testified at the hearing regarding what Edmond told counsel about his connection with the apartment. There are some conflicts in their testimony. For present purposes, the Court will base its decision on trial counsel's testimony regarding the evidence that he had and what Edmond told him.

         Trial counsel testified that Edmond told him that Penister-who Edmond described as his girlfriend-and their two children lived at the apartment but that he (Edmond) did not. June 16, 2016 Tr. at 13-14. Edmond also told counsel that at the time of the search, he and Penister were not seeing each other and "were kind of off and on at that time, their relationship." Id. at 14. When asked whether Edmond told him that he would stay at the apartment three nights a week, counsel said no, and that what Edmond said was that during the time period in question, he and Penister "were kind of - still on the outs, kind of, but that he would visit the home two to three days a week" and that he also financially supported the children. Id. at 15.

         Trial counsel also testified that he had talked to Penister regarding when and how often Edmond was at the apartment-and, during this testimony, he returned to what Edmond had told him about this:

Q: And didn't she tell you Mr. Edmond would stay there?
A: Yeah, that he would visit two days a week, two or three days a week.
Q: And he would spend the night?
A: Some nights he spent the night. Sometimes he spent the night, sometimes he didn't. And if I might, Mr. Edmond said that as well; said sometimes he spent ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.