Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Antonio Maurice Gardner was convicted and sentenced for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine in the Western District of Texas. Before the district court, he moved to suppress evidence obtained under a search warrant.
On appeal, Gardner challenged the denial of his suppression motion and the calculation of his criminal-history score. He also asserted that he received ineffective assistance of counsel.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit held that the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied. The affidavit supporting the search warrant was not “bare bones” because it did not consist of wholly conclusory statements, so the district court did not err in denying Gardner’s motion to suppress.
The court declined to address Gardner’s criminal-history argument because he waived the objection at sentencing. It also declined to consider his ineffective-assistance claim because the record was insufficiently developed, leaving Gardner free to raise that claim in collateral review.
Key Takeaways
- A warrant affidavit that is not bare bones may support application of the good-faith exception even when the defendant challenges the underlying search.
- An objection expressly waived at sentencing will not be reviewed on appeal.
- An ineffective-assistance claim requiring further factual development is generally better suited to collateral review.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the practical importance of the good-faith exception in suppression litigation and the appellate consequences of waiving a sentencing objection. It also preserves Gardner’s ability to pursue his ineffective-assistance claim later through collateral proceedings, while leaving his conviction and sentence intact.