Ronnie Ray v. United States
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 15808
6th Cir.2013Background
- Ronnie Travis Ray was convicted in 2004 on five child-pornography counts; convictions were affirmed and sentence later reimposed and affirmed on resentencing.
- Ray filed a pro se 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion arguing (inter alia) an illegal warrantless search (Fourth Amendment) and ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to move to suppress (Sixth Amendment).
- The searches were conducted after Deborah Moore, who had been living at Ray’s apartment caring for his children, consented first to local police and later to the FBI.
- The district court denied the § 2255 motion without an evidentiary hearing, finding Moore had at least apparent authority to consent and that Ray failed to show counsel was ineffective.
- This panel reviewed whether the district court abused its discretion by denying a hearing, whether the searches were objectively unreasonable, and whether counsel was ineffective.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an evidentiary hearing was required on Ray’s Fourth and Sixth Amendment claims | A hearing was necessary to resolve factual disputes about Moore’s authority and counsel’s failure to move to suppress | The record (including trial testimony and the trial judge’s recollection) contradicts Ray and is sufficient to resolve the claims without a hearing | No abuse of discretion in denying a hearing; district court relied on the record and judge’s recollections |
| Whether the warrantless searches violated the Fourth Amendment because Moore lacked authority to consent | Moore lacked actual authority; consent was invalid | Moore had actual or, at minimum, apparent authority to consent based on her living there and testimony | Search valid under Matlock and apparent-authority doctrine; Fourth Amendment claim denied |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not moving to suppress evidence from the searches | Counsel’s failure to move to suppress was deficient and prejudicial | The Fourth Amendment claim lacks merit, so counsel’s failure was not prejudicial under Strickland/Kimmelman | Ineffective-assistance claim fails because the underlying Fourth Amendment claim was meritless; no prejudice shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465 (1976) (limits collateral habeas review of Fourth Amendment claims where full and fair opportunity to litigate existed)
- Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365 (1986) (ineffective-assistance claims based on failure to litigate Fourth Amendment issues require merits review of the Fourth Amendment claim)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong standard for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
- United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164 (1974) (consent by one with common authority is valid against absent co-occupant)