N.D.Ind.: No IAC where def pled but co-def prevailed on 4A claim

Defendant entered into a beneficial plea agreement and pled to a superseding information and was sentenced. Later, the passenger in his car filed a motion to suppress and prevailed. Still, this was not ineffective assistance of his counsel. “Aside from testimony and other information that would not come to light until after Mr. Neal pleaded guilty, the decision to forego a motion to suppress was strategic and not an unintelligent approach to a smart defense. Counsel’s affidavit affirms that he discussed at length with Mr. Neal a motion to quash arrest and motion to suppress evidence. Mr. Neal does not contest this.” Neal v. United States, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147147 (N.D. Ind. Aug. 21, 2023).

Defendant’s DNA was taken by limited consent, and developing a DNA profile from it would have violated the scope of consent. “Still, the superior court erred by suppressing Mitcham’s DNA profile because (1) probable cause supported his arrest even without the impermissible DNA match that allowed the State to obtain a buccal swab and develop a DNA profile; and (2) once Mitcham pled guilty to other felony charges, the profile was properly in the State’s possession. Thus, we reverse the suppression order and remand for further proceedings.” State v. Mitcham, 2023 Ariz. App. LEXIS 360 (Aug. 22, 2023).*

There was independent probable cause under the automobile exception to search defendant’s vehicle on the premises where a warrant was being executed. United States v. Joins, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 22074 (11th Cir. Aug. 22, 2023).*

This entry was posted in Automobile exception, Consent, DNA, Ineffective assistance. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.