W.D.N.C.: Def doesn’t have standing in a rental car, and the court is bound by existing authority

“According to the defendant’s motion, he was using the rental car with permission from its authorized driver. (Doc. No. 16: Motion at 1). However, he has not alleged that he was listed as an authorized driver on the rental agreement with the car’s owner, Enterprise Rent-A-Car.” “n.2. The defendant is hopeful for a change in the law, (Doc. No. 16-1: Memorandum at 5); however, this inferior Court is obliged to follow published, controlling law in this Circuit.” Denied. United States v. Derrick, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3115 (W.D. N.C. Jan. 3, 2018). [And Byrd v. United States on that issue is argued today.]

Defendant’s 2255 is denied. One of his claims is that defense counsel was ineffective for not calling a witness at the suppression hearing. He does not, however, show that the witness’s testimony has any relevance to the issuance of the warrant or would change the outcome. United States v. Fennell, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2685 (W.D. Va. Jan. 8, 2018).*

This entry was posted in Ineffective assistance, Standing. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.