With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); see also State v. Clark, 2004 UT 25, ¶ 6, 89 P.3d 162. "An ineffective assistance of counsel claim raised for the first time on appeal presents a question of law." Clark, 2004 UT 25, ¶ 6, 89 P.3d 162. 112 Mitchell has not demonstrated that he was prejudiced by his counsel's failure to file a timely motion to suppress, because he has not demonstrated a reasonable probability that the motion to suppress would have been granted had it been timely filed. Mitchell asserts that the affidavit supporting the warrant to search his house did not establish probable cause on its face. Probable cause exists when "there is a 'fair probability that evidence of the crime will be found in the place or places named in the warrant." State v. (11th Cir.2012) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Maxwell, 45 M.J. 406, 420

A: holding that there was probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant where the officers corroboration of events that occurred during the controlled buy as set forth in the affidavit provide sufficient probable cause
B: holding that an affidavit that gave directions to 1924 queen city avenue and included a description of the numberplate and building at that location provided sufficient probable cause to validate a search warrant despite also containing a single reference to 1942 queen city avenue
C: holding that an affidavit did not provide probable cause sufficient to validate a warrant where the affidavit stated an incorrect date uncontradicted by any other specific fact in the affidavit
D: holding that affidavit incorporated by reference and stapled to warrant could be used to aid description found in warrant
B.