 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Collier v. State4/5/2004
Following a jury trial, Steven William Collier appeals his drug-related convictions on four counts of homicide by vehicle in the first degree [FN1] and on two counts of driving under the influence. [FN2] Collier does not appeal his nondrug-related convictions on two counts of homicide by vehicle in the second degree, [FN3] on one count of failure to obey a traffic signal, [FN4] and on one count of giving a false name to a law enforcement officer. [FN5] On appeal, Collier contends that the trial court erred by denying his motion for new trial, arguing, among other things, that he received ineffective assistance because his trial counsel did not **374 move to suppress the results of blood and urine tests showing methamphetamine and amphetamine in his system at the time his truck crashed into another vehicle, killing two people therein. Specifically, Collier argues that the undisputed record shows that he was coerced into taking the blood and urine tests, and that his trial counsel wholly failed to argue this point. For the reasons set forth below, we reverse the drug-related convictions and remand the case for a new trial on these counts. We also vacate the court's sentencing rulings on the nondrug-related convictions and remand the case for resentencing on these counts.
FN1. OCGA § 40-6-393(a).
FN2. OCGA § 40-6-391.
FN3. OCGA § 40-6-393(b).
FN4. OCGA §§ 40-6-20; 40-6-21.
FN5. OCGA § 16-10-25. Due to mergers of the various counts, the trial court sentenced Collier only on two counts of homicide by vehicle in the first degree and the one count of giving a false name to a law enforcement officer.
"[I]t [is the defendant's] burden to develop the record on motion for new trial in order to clarify discrepancies or inconsistencies; this Court views the facts to support the trial court's ruling." (Footnote omitted.) Garrett v. State. [FN6] "The standard of review of the trial court's determination of the effectiveness of counsel is whether the trial court's findings are clearly erroneous." Gadson v. State. [FN7]
FN6. Garrett v. State, 259 Ga.App. 870, 874(2), 578 S.E.2d 460 (2003).
FN7. Gadson v. State, 252 Ga.App. 347, 352(11), 556 S.E.2d 449 (2001).
The evidence at trial showed that Collier drove his pickup truck through a red light. Collier's truck collided with a car, killing its *763 driver and severely injuring its passenger. The passenger subsequently died from the injuries received in the crash.
When police arrived at the crash scene, Collier allowed his passenger to claim that she had been driving the truck. Police then told Collier's passenger that they would have to obtain tests of her blood and urine and then read her the implied consent notice. The passenger declined consent, and police obtained a search warrant and later at a hospital forcibly obtained a blood and urine sample from her.
After witnessing police place the passenger into a patrol vehicle to take her to the hospital for the tests, Collier fled the area. The police gave chase, caught Collier, handcuffed him, and placed him in their patrol car. The police told Collier that they would have to take blood and urine from him for tests because there was a question as to who had been driving the truck at the time of the accident. Collier was given the implied consent warning and, like his passenger, refused to give consent. Police threatened to obtain a search warrant and to forcibly use a catheter to obtain the samples if Collier did not give consent. In the face of this threat, Collier consented. Subsequent analysis of Collier's blood and urine showed that both contained amphetamine and methamphetamine.
Following his conviction based on these facts, Collier moved for a new trial on his drug-related convictions,
Page 1 2 3 Georgia DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|