DE: No IAC where third-party consent, no standing, and desire to distance def from gun

Defense counsel was not ineffective for not seeking suppression of a gun in a capital case where the gun was his father’s and in his father’s house and his father consented to the search. Aside from the voluntariness of the consent, counsel didn’t think defendant had standing. Moreover, the decision for trial was to distance him from the gun, not claim any relationship to it, and that was reasonable strategy. State v. Cabrera, 2015 Del. Super. LEXIS 295 (June 17, 2015).

Defendant was in custody for Miranda purposes, and the officer asked if there was anything in the car that he should worry about, and defendant, rather than answering the question, consented to his looking in the car. State v. Delong, 357 Ore. 365 (June 18, 2015), rev’g State v. Delong, 260 Ore. App. 718, 320 P.3d 653 (2014).*

The record supports the trial court’s conclusion that defendant consented to the taking of his DNA. Martinez-Hernandez v. State, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 6101 (Tex.App.–San Antonio June 17, 2015).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.