{"id":4295,"date":"2011-01-11T16:49:26","date_gmt":"2010-06-15T08:25:52","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2010-06-15T08:25:52","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=4295","title":{"rendered":"D.S.D.: Defense counsel not ineffective for not forecasting <em>Gant<\/em>"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Defense counsel was not ineffective for not forecasting <a href=\"http:\/\/www.supremecourtus.gov\/opinions\/08pdf\/07-542.pdf\">Gant<\/a>, and it was not a &#8220;new rule.&#8221; Wright v. United States, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57875 (D. S.D. June 11, 2010)*:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>The Supreme Court of the United States has never held that <a href=\"http:\/\/www.supremecourtus.gov\/opinions\/08pdf\/07-542.pdf\">Gant<\/a> articulated a \u201cnew rule\u201d of criminal procedure and has not made Gant retroactive to cases on collateral review. See, e.g., Lopez v. Vazquez, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46225, No. 1:10-cv-00345, at *10 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 7, 2010) (finding that <a href=\"http:\/\/www.supremecourtus.gov\/opinions\/08pdf\/07-542.pdf\">Gant<\/a> did not state it was articulating a \u201cnew rule\u201d and that the Supreme Court did not hold that <a href=\"http:\/\/www.supremecourtus.gov\/opinions\/08pdf\/07-542.pdf\">Gant<\/a> should be retroactively applied on collateral review); Bess v. United States, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46690, No. CV209-160 (S.D. Ga. Mar. 19, 2010) (\u201cthe Supreme Court has not made <a href=\"http:\/\/www.supremecourtus.gov\/opinions\/08pdf\/07-542.pdf\">Gant<\/a> retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review); United States v. Brown, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47425, No. 8:06-246, at *4 (D.S.C. June 5, 2009). Therefore, assuming the accuracy of Petitioner&#8217;s factual allegations, counsel did not perform ineffectively under Strickland when failing to advise Petitioner of the law as subsequently articulated in the <a href=\"http:\/\/www.supremecourtus.gov\/opinions\/08pdf\/07-542.pdf\">Gant<\/a> opinion.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>The evidence supports the fact finding of the district court that there consent was not coerced. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.ca5.uscourts.gov\/opinions%5Cunpub%5C09\/09-50948.0.wpd.pdf\">United States v. Cienfuegos-Pompa<\/a>, 381 Fed. Appx. 353 (5th Cir. 2010) (unpublished).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>b2evALnk.b2WPAutP <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=4295\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4295","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4295","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=4295"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4295\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=4295"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=4295"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=4295"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}