M.D.N.C.: In 4A IAC claim, defendant has to show standing in detail and vague allegations aren’t enough

Defendant’s IAC claim here depends on his having standing. His vague allegations of standing aren’t enough. Organes-Espino v. United States, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113536 (M.D.N.C. Aug. 25, 2016).

The officer had reasonable suspicion defendant had been driving under the influence after a serious accident with a semi from reports from witnesses. Defendant was handcuffed and put in a police car before going to the hospital. He’d been Mirandized twice and given the implied consent rights twice. The record supports that defendant consented to his blood draw. Gutenstein v. State, 2016 Ind. App. LEXIS 324 (Aug. 31, 2016).*

The approach of defendant’s car was with reasonable suspicion. The implied consent statute is constitutional. Garcia v. Levi, 2016 ND 174, 2016 N.D. LEXIS 171 (Aug. 31, 2016).*

This entry was posted in Burden of proof, Consent, Drug or alcohol testing, Ineffective assistance, Standing. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.