Dephne Nguyen Wright v. Texas

Petitioner’s trial counsel filed a pretrial motion to suppress that contended that the state judge’s search warrant was invalid under the Fourth Amendment because it was based on “stale” information which did not provide anything near probable cause that petitioner possessed evidence of the capital murders charged in this case in her home. The trial court denied that motion despite the fact that a police officer’s warrant application clearly failed to establish probable cause that the incriminating evidence sought would be present in petitioner’s home nearly five years after the murders. On direct appeal, petitioner’s counsel failed to raise that Fourth Amendment issue. This Court’s well-established precedent holds that a search warrant based on stale information that does not establish current probable cause is invalid under the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Grubbs, 547 U.S. 90, 95 & n.2 (2006). On state habeas corpus review, the Texas courts concluded that petitioner’s appellate counsel provided effective assistance because he believed that the search warrant was not based on stale information, notwithstanding the nearly five-year delay. The question presented is: Whether the Texas courts’ misapplication of this Court’s precedent concerning “stale” search warrants requires a remand for reconsideration of petitioner’s claim that her appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to raise a clearly meritorious Fourth Amendment issue on direct appeal.