What is the effect of ineffective Assistance of Counsel in denying a suppression motion at the preliminary hearing on the grounds that appellant's arrest was the product of a consensual sexual encounter?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Terrell, 69 Cal.App.4th 1246, 82 Cal.Rptr.2d 231 (Cal. App. 1999):
The record reflects the magistrate denied his suppression motion at the preliminary hearing on the ground appellant's arrest was the product of a consensual encounter. Appellant did not renew his challenge to the validity of his arrest in the superior court either by making a suppression motion ( 1538.5) or a dismissal motion ( 995) for review of the magistrate's ruling. His failure to renew his challenge in the superior court precludes appellate review of his claim of error because "it would be wholly inappropriate to reverse a superior court's judgment for error it did not commit and that was never called to its attention." (People v. Lilienthal (1978) 22 Cal.3d 891, 896, 150 Cal.Rptr. 910, 587 P.2d 706.)
2. No Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Shown
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
