 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Bucklin6/15/2005
Matthew Bucklin appeals his conviction for first-degree robbery. AFFIRMED.
Considered by Mahan, P.J., and Zimmer and Vaitheswaran, JJ.
I. Background Facts & Proceedings
On April 9, 2003, Matthew Bucklin sought to purchase some methamphetamine because he wanted to get high one last time before he entered a substance abuse treatment program the next day. At the request of Bucklin, his girlfriend, Jennifer Danks, and brother, Adam Bucklin, went to the home of Nicole Ahn to purchase the drugs. Bucklin previously had been in a romantic relationship with Ahn and had lived with her.
Danks, Adam, and Ahn used methamphetamine together. Then Ahn sold Danks and Adam a purported bag of methamphetamine for about $200. When it was delivered to Bucklin, however, he discovered he had been sold sugar. Ahn testified she did this on purpose because Bucklin "had lived off me for months. He never paid any bills at my house." Bucklin became very angry and called Ahn several times demanding that she give him drugs. Bucklin had some alcoholic drinks that day.
In the evening, Bucklin armed himself with a shotgun and had Danks drive him to Ahn's house. At the home, Bucklin pointed the gun alternately at Ahn and Danks and again demanded drugs. Ahn gave Bucklin the money she had and told him she did not have any methamphetamine. Eventually, Bucklin left Ahn's home, and she called police officers.
That same evening, officers found Bucklin hiding in a closet in his parents' house. Bucklin was told his Miranda rights. Deputies Dennis Stevenson and Gary Marshall of the Jasper County Sheriff's Department testified Bucklin seemed coherent. Bucklin admitted he had gone to Ahn's home with a shotgun to either get his money back or get some drugs. He gave the officers the $200 he had taken from Ahn. At the sheriff's department, Bucklin repeated the same story during a videotaped interview. At about 2:00 a.m., Bucklin had a blood alcohol level of .074, below the legal limit for intoxication.
Bucklin was charged with robbery in the first degree, in violation of Iowa Code sections 711.1 and 711.2 (2003), and burglary in the first degree, in violation of sections 713.1 and 713.3. Bucklin filed a motion to suppress, claiming his statements were not voluntary because he was under the influence of numerous substances. He later withdrew the motion. During the trial, Bucklin objected to the admission of the deputies' testimony and the videotape on voluntariness grounds. The district court overruled his objections.
Bucklin was convicted of first-degree robbery and trespass. He was sentenced to a term of imprisonment not to exceed twenty-five years. Bucklin appeals the robbery conviction, claiming he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel.
II. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
Our review of an allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel is de novo. State v. Bergmann, 600 N.W.2d 311, 313 (Iowa 1999). To establish a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show (1) the attorney failed to perform an essential duty and (2) prejudice resulted to the extent it denied defendant a fair trial. State v. Ceaser, 585 N.W.2d 192, 195 (Iowa 1998).
In proving the first prong, the defendant faces a strong presumption the performance of counsel falls within a wide range of reasonable professional assistance. State v. Hepperle, 530 N.W.2d 735, 739 (Iowa 1995). We will not second guess reasonable trial strategy. State v. Wissing, 528 N.W.2d 561, 564 (Iowa 1995). The second prong is satisfied if a reasonable probability exists that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proc
Page 1 2 3 Iowa DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|