Casebrief

The defendant G.M.V was convicted for the constructive possession of an illegal altered firearm and possession of 817 grams of marijuana. Authority raided the defendant's home, which she was a resident of, but belonging to her mother and step-father. The reasons for the raid were based on the conduct of the defendant's boyfriend, Ivan Longoria. Longoria had sold drugs to an uncovered officer and was followed thereafter. Longoria motions led police to infer that the controlled substance police had purchased from him were being kept and transported from the defendant's residence. Longoria was not a permanent resident at the home, but had a consistence pattern of cohabitating with the defendant 3 or 4 days out of the week. In the room that the defendant was presently residing the authorities uncovered 817 grams of marijuana. G.M.V was unambiguously aware of the drug presence and affirms it was the possession of Longoria. Moreover, authorities discovered an illegal altered shotgun present in an upstairs bedroom. The bedroom was previously and recently occupied by the defendant as her living quarter. The defendant denies that inadvertently she had possession of the marijuana and denies any responsibility of the shotgun. The legal issue follows below.

The juvenile court found the defendant liable for both counts of possession. The decisions were supported on the findings that the defendant had recently vacated the upstairs room within a few days of the raid. Furthermore, the initial relocation to the lower living quarter was incomplete as the defendant still had most of her belongings upstairs. Thereby, suggesting the defendant still had dominion and control over the upstairs bedroom as well as the downstairs bedroom. The conviction was appealed. The court opinion follows below.

The defendant argues the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on reasons that the assigned counsel failed to dispute the search warrant. The defendant contends that the states failed to show a connection between Longoria's drug activity and her parent's home thereby making it unlawful to search the home. This defense had no validity as it

1)the warrant was specified to search the place that Mr.Longoria left and turn to before he sold drugs and 2) thereby making the claims of ineffective counsel invalid as the warrant was valid in the search of the home. The defendant then raises the rights to a pretrial hearing. This stems from the