United States v. McKinney: Law-of-the-Case Bars Re-Litigation of Franks Suppression Claims on §2255

Introduction

This commentary examines the Tenth Circuit’s April 17, 2025 order denying a Certificate of Appealability (“COA”) in United States v. McKinney, No. 24-5098. Core issues include:

Defendant’s challenge under Franks v. Delaware to search-warrant affidavits based on alleged false statements;
Application of the law-of-the-case doctrine in §2255 proceedings;
Ineffective assistance of counsel claims under Strickland v. Washington.

Parties: the United States (Appellee) and Corey Shamon McKinney (Appellant). The background: after convictions for drug and firearm offenses following two searches of McKinney’s residence, McKinney pursued a direct appeal and then a §2255 motion. Both the direct appeal and the §2255 proceedings involved allegations of reckless misstatements in search-warrant affidavits.

Summary of the Judgment

The Tenth Circuit denied McKinney’s request for a COA, concluding that reasonable jurists would not debate the district court’s rejection of his §2255 claims. Key rulings:

No Franks entitlement: On direct appeal, the court compared affidavit statements to officer testimony and found no material contradictions to warrant a Franks hearing (2023 WL 111044 at *3–*5).
Law-of-the-case applies: McKinney could not relitigate on §2255 the same Franks issue already decided against him on direct appeal (citing United States v. Trent, 884 F.3d 985, 994–95 (10th Cir. 2018)).
Ineffective assistance claims: Both alleged counsel failures (failure to move for a Franks hearing or to challenge constructive possession under §924(c)) lacked merit under the Strickland standard.
COA denied: Under Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000), McKinney could not show that jurists of reason would debate the district court’s procedural or substantive rulings.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978): requires suppression if a warrant affidavit includes intentionally or recklessly false statements that are material to probable cause.
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000): COA standard for §2253(c) appeals from denials of §2255 relief.
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984): two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel (performance and prejudice).
United States v. Norton, 130 F.4th 824, 832 (10th Cir. 2025): reaffirming Franks requirements in the Tenth Circuit.
United States v. Xiang, 12 F.4th 1176 (10th Cir. 2021): clarifying “serious doubts” and “reckless disregard” standards under Franks.
United States v. Trent, 884 F.3d 985, 994–95 (10th Cir. 2018): law-of-the-case doctrine precluding reexamination of issues decided on direct appeal.
United States v. Bolden, 472 F.3d 750 (10th Cir. 2006): procedural default bar for issues not raised on direct appeal.

Legal Reasoning

The court’s reasoning unfolds in two main segments:

Franks claim and law-of-the-case:
- On direct appeal, McKinney alleged reckless misstatements in warrant affidavits. The Tenth Circuit carefully compared affidavits to officer testimony and found no contradiction warranting a Franks hearing.
- Under the law-of-the-case, that decision conclusively bars McKinney from seeking the same relief in a §2255 proceeding. Re-adjudication would effectively relitigate an issue already resolved, which the court will not allow absent extraordinary circumstances.
Ineffective assistance of counsel:
- First claim: counsel did not move for a Franks hearing or renew the suppression motion. Given the court’s prior holding that no Franks violation existed, counsel’s inaction was objectively reasonable and not prejudicial under Strickland.
- Second claim: counsel failed to challenge constructive possession for the §924(c) charge. The record shows counsel cross-examined witnesses, highlighted lack of direct evidence, and argued alternative ownership theories. McKinney offered no demonstration of a reasonable probability of a different outcome.

Impact

This decision reinforces several important principles:

In §2255 motions, courts will not entertain collateral attacks on issues decided on direct appeal under the law-of-the-case doctrine.
Defendants cannot bootstrap a previously rejected Franks claim into an ineffective assistance argument unless new, material evidence emerges.
The ruling clarifies that counsel’s strategic choices—such as not pursuing a doomed Franks hearing—will rarely be second-guessed if prior appellate decisions foreclose success.
Future §2255 filers in the Tenth Circuit must show genuinely new grounds or overcome procedural default to avoid the law-of-the-case barrier.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Certificate of Appealability (COA): Permission a federal prisoner needs to appeal a denial of habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. §2253(c). The petitioner must show that reasonable jurists would debate the court’s resolution of his constitutional claims.
Franks hearing: A pretrial evidentiary hearing to test the veracity of statements in a search-warrant affidavit if the defendant makes a “substantial preliminary showing” of deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth.
Law-of-the-case doctrine: Once an appeals court decides an issue, that decision binds the same parties in later stages of the same litigation absent extraordinary circumstances.
Constructive possession: A legal theory allowing conviction if the defendant knowingly controlled premises where contraband or firearms were found, even without physical possession.
Strickland standard: To prove ineffective assistance, a defendant must show (1) counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and (2) prejudice—i.e., a reasonable probability the result would have been different.

Conclusion

United States v. McKinney affirms the Tenth Circuit’s rigorous application of the law-of-the-case doctrine and the Strickland framework in §2255 proceedings. It underscores that defendants may not relitigate issues already decided on direct appeal—here, the absence of a Franks violation—by repackaging them as ineffective assistance claims. The denial of a COA signals that reasonable jurists will not debate the procedural or substantive rulings, cementing the finality of the earlier decision and guiding future post-conviction practice in the Tenth Circuit.