Stark v. State
48342
| Idaho Ct. App. | Apr 1, 2022Background:
- Officers serving a felony arrest warrant on Stark’s wife learned Stark had aided her; Stark was arrested for harboring a felon.
- Before being restrained, Stark tied his dog, removed a backpack and set it on the ground near the dog; he then walked a few feet away to be handcuffed.
- Officers moved Stark to a police vehicle, searched his person, and another officer picked up the backpack, brought it to the vehicle, and searched it without Stark’s consent; the backpack contained methamphetamine.
- Stark pled guilty to trafficking methamphetamine and later filed a post-conviction petition claiming trial counsel was ineffective for not moving to suppress the backpack evidence.
- The district court denied relief, finding a suppression motion would have failed (applying the inevitable discovery doctrine); this Court affirmed.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance for failing to file a motion to suppress | Stark: counsel deficient for not moving to suppress backpack evidence | State: motion would have failed; therefore no prejudice from counsel’s omission | Court: denial affirmed — Stark failed to prove deficient performance or prejudice because suppression likely would have failed |
| Applicability of search-incident-to-arrest to backpack | Stark: backpack was off his person and out of reach, so SITA does not apply | State: SITA contested but Court did not need to resolve it because of inevitable discovery | Court: declined to decide SITA applicability |
| Whether backpack was abandoned | Stark: he denied ownership before Miranda and disputes abandonment | State: argued abandonment but Court did not rely on abandonment | Court: declined to resolve abandonment issue |
| Inevitable discovery / inventory exception | Stark: State did not proffer inevitable discovery and evidence would not inevitably be transported/searched | State: in post-conviction petitioner bears burden to show suppression would succeed; evidence would have been inevitably discovered (inventory at booking) | Court: applied inevitable discovery—evidence would have been inevitably discovered; suppression motion would have failed |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes the two‑prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (recognizes the inevitable discovery doctrine)
- Lint v. State, 145 Idaho 472 (district court may consider probability of success of unfiled motions in post‑conviction proceedings)
- Stuart v. State, 136 Idaho 490 (discusses application of inevitable discovery in Idaho)
- Plant v. State, 143 Idaho 758 (prejudice standard when conviction follows a guilty plea)