Porter v. United States
2012 D.C. App. LEXIS 66
| D.C. | 2012Background
- Porter appeals a denial of his D.C.Code § 23-110 post-conviction motion alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to move to suppress evidence from a second home entry.
- Trial concerned a December 2003 armed robbery of Walker; Porter was convicted on that charge and related weapon offenses, but acquitted of an October 2003 robbery.
- Witness Walker testified to items taken from him and identified property found in a second house entry; a sawed-off shotgun was recovered later under a warrant.
- The trial court assumed suppression would have been granted for the second-entry evidence but found the remaining evidence overwhelming, denying relief.
- On appeal, the court vacated and remanded for further proceedings to determine whether suppression would have changed the outcome, given the disputed plain-view issues.
- The majority remands for an evidentiary hearing limited to plain-view issues; the dissent would reject remand and adopt Giordenello standard to foreclose second-entry inquiry.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not moving to suppress the second-entry evidence | Porter argues omitted suppression would have altered outcome. | United States contends suppression would not change result or evidence falls under plain view. | Remand for factual development required; prejudice cannot be resolved on the record. |
| Whether plain-view seizure from the second entry was admissible | Porter contends second-entry plain-view seizure violated Fourth Amendment. | United States argues plain view could support admissibility under Clark and related doctrine. | Facts insufficient to resolve; remand ordered to develop plain-view applicability. |
| Whether remand is appropriate under Giordenello and 2106 standards | Remand not warranted; guilty record insufficient to justify further hearings. | Remand appropriate to develop a complete record on plain-view issues. | Remand ordered; procedure to determine admissibility and potential prejudice. |
| Whether evidence from the second entry altered the evidentiary picture such that prejudice occurred | Second-entry cigar boxes and tissue box with Walker's name were highly probative. | Evidence was corroborative and could be outweighed by bracelet and shotgun. | Cannot determine prejudice on current record; remand necessary. |
Key Cases Cited
- Clark v. United States, 593 A.2d 186 (D.C. 1991) (plain-view admissibility when initial emergency entry observed items; later seizure permissible)
- Settles v. United States, 615 A.2d 1105 (D.C. 1992) (plain-view and continuation of lawful entry considerations; limits of rapid seizures)
- Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365 (U.S. 1986) (burden-shifting for suppression claims in collateral attack; remand for prejudice findings)
- Giordenello v. United States, 357 U.S. 480 (U.S. 1958) (special circumstances standard for remand; governs appellate remand authority)
- Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U.S. 499 (U.S. 1978) (emergency-entry limits and continued seizure validity; plain-view implications depend on initial entry legality)
- Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (U.S. 1971) (plain-view doctrine fundamentals and its limits; need for prior justification for intrusion)
- Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (U.S. 1990) (probable cause requirement for plain-view seizures)
- Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248 (U.S. 1991) (consent scope governs admissibility of subsequent searches)