The trial court, after denying the defendant's motion to suppress the items seized, conducted a jury trial. The jury returned a verdict of guilty, and the trial court sentenced the defendant to ten years' imprisonment and suspended the sentence after ten years.
The defendant appealed his conviction, and this court remanded the case for the limited purpose of conducting a hearing on the defendant's motion to suppress the seized evidence. State v. Simmons, 544 So.2d 463 (La.App. 2d Cir.1989). The trial court found that the defendant's motion to suppress was without merit, and on appeal, the defendant argued that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress because the search and seizure of the defendant's evidence violated his constitutional right to be secure in his person, papers, and effects. This court found no merit in the defendant's argument and affirmed his conviction.
In his subsequent petition for post conviction relief, the defendant alleged that defense counsel failed to file a timely motion to reconsider his sentence and failed to inform the defendant of the time period within which to file such a motion. The trial court, after hearing arguments on the defendant's claim, concluded that the defendant's allegations were without merit, and this court affirmed the trial court's denial of the defendant's petition for post conviction relief. State v. Simmons, 576 So.2d 753 (La.App. 2d Cir.1991).
In his application for writ of habeas corpus, the defendant contends that he was denied due process because the evidence seized by the police should have been suppressed. He alleges that the police officers acted in bad faith when they searched his car without a warrant. He alleges that the vehicle search exceeded the scope of the warrant issued by the magistrate because the police officers exceeded the warrant by searching the entire trunk, including the area in which the cocaine was found. The defendant alleges that he should not have been convicted of possession of cocaine because the officers did not have probable cause to search the entire trunk and the officers did not comply with the terms of the warrant.
The defendant did not set forth any facts in his application for writ of habeas corpus that would demonstrate that his claim has any merit. He merely alleged that the officers acted in bad faith when they searched his car. As we stated in our previous opinion in this matter, the defendant failed to allege any facts supporting this conclusion. Therefore, we find that the defendant has failed to set forth any set of facts which, if proven, would 0b46394aab