ID: Defense counsel not ineffective for not forecasting Gant

Defense counsel was not ineffective for not forecasting Gant under which defendant might well have prevailed. Hoskins v. State, 149 Idaho 815, 242 P.3d 185 (App. 2010)*:

It appears that if the standards announced in Gant were applied, a suppression motion might have merit in Hoskins’ case. That does not mean, however, that Hoskins has shown that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. The Sixth Amendment entitles criminal defendants to reasonably competent counsel, but not perfect or prescient counsel. … [¶] Despite his protests to the contrary, Hoskins is asking this Court to hold his defense counsel deficient for failing to anticipate future developments in the law. The constitutional standard for effective assistance of counsel does not demand such prescience. Accordingly, we agree with the district court’s assessment that Hoskins’ claim for ineffective assistance of counsel is without merit.

Officer reasonably believed the defendant was driving on a “public road” not a private street when he stopped defendant, so the stop was valid. State v. Hopper, 205 N.C. App. 175, 695 S.E.2d 801 (2010).*