Marty Luke v. United States, 686 F.3d 600

Luke, a felon, pled guilty to possession of a firearm and ammunition and received the statutory minimum 180-month sentence.
Police stopped Luke near his parked truck due to eye-witness identifications and linked stolen items to him and his brother.
During a search of Luke’s wife’s car and then his truck, police found jewelry matching stolen items, a pistol, and ammunition; Luke consented to the truck search.
Luke claimed memory gaps about the day’s events; he waived pretrial motions, including suppression, and admitted to the search and possession in the plea agreement.
Luke’s competency and ability to assist defense were evaluated post-plea by two doctors; one raised concerns but no incompetency conclusion, the other found competence and suggested exaggeration by Luke.
The district court found no meritorious suppression argument, no credible request for an appeal, and no ineffective assistance based on competency evaluations.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was counsel ineffective for not moving to suppress evidence?	Luke asserts suppression would have succeeded; counsel should have challenged the stop or search.	Counsel reasonably believed evidence was obtained legally and suppression would fail.	No, suppression motion would not have succeeded.
Did Luke request an appeal and was counsel ineffective for not filing one?	Luke remembers a potential appeal request; counsel would have filed if made.	No credible evidence Luke requested an appeal; counsel would have filed if asked.	No, counsel not ineffective; no credible request established.
Was counsel ineffective for failing to seek a competency evaluation?	Competency evaluation was warranted given Luke’s mental health history.	Evaluations were considered unnecessary; Luke communicated and assisted defense; evaluations would not change outcome.	No, mental evaluation would not have changed the outcome; counsel not ineffective.

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (ineffective assistance standard; deficient performance and prejudice)
Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365 (U.S. 1986) (merit to suppress evidence essential to claim)
Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (U.S. 1969) (search incident to arrest authority)
Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (U.S. 1990) (plain-view doctrine and immediate apparent incriminating nature)
Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (U.S. 1960) (test for mental competency)
United States v. Banks, 514 F.3d 769 (8th Cir. 2008) (single-purpose container concept for apparent contents)
United States v. Parrish, 606 F.3d 480 (8th Cir. 2010) (probable cause standard for warrantless arrest)
United States v. Velazquez–Rivera, 366 F.3d 661 (8th Cir. 2004) (probable cause and corroborating evidence standards)
Tinajero-Ortiz v. United States, 635 F.3d 1100 (8th Cir. 2011) (credibility assessment for appellate requests in §2255 context)
Yodprasit v. United States, 294 F.3d 966 (8th Cir. 2002) (ineffective assistance standard for appeal failures)
Estes v. United States, 883 F.2d 645 (8th Cir. 1989) (credibility and memory in evaluating requests to appeal)