The Court first concluded that counsel's performance was not deficient in investigating and litigating the suppression motion. The specific facts of the case showed that counsel met with the client on multiple occasions to discuss strategy, complied with the client's request to file a motion, and competently argued the facts and the law on Fourth Amendment standing. Although counsel might have investigated more thoroughly the client's connection to the residence, and although he did not call the client and other people as witnesses at the hearing, counsel could have reasonably believed that he had enough information to establish standing, and the Court does not second guess strategic decisions about which witnesses to call.
The Court also concluded that the movant failed to establish prejudice because he could not establish a meritorious Fourth Amendment claim, since he lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in the residence as a house guest. That was so because he was using the residence for a commercial purpose -- as the base of a marijuana trafficking operation -- and was using it for that purpose when he was arrested. That he also hung out and kept personal possessions there was not sufficient to transform his business relationship with the house into a social one.
