What is a reasonable time period for trial counsel to be required to become aware of recent precedence before he/she may be deemed ineffective for failing to utilize a United States Supreme Court holding that would substantially effect the outcome of a trial that had not yet occurred?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. WHAT IS A REASONABLE TIME PERIOD FOR TRIAL COUNSEL TO BE : REQUIRED TO BECOME AWARE OF RECENT PRECEDENCE,BEFORE HE/ SHE MAY DEEMED INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO UTILIZE A UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT HOLDING THAT WOULD SUBSTANTIALLY EFFECT THE OUTCOME OF A TRIAL THAT HAD NOT YET OCCURED ? 2. IS IT PERMISSIBLE FOR A STATE COURT OF APPEALS TO INSERT ; ITS' OWN OPINION FOR TRIAL COUNSELS' FAILURE TO FORMCAN AN OBJECTION,ABSENT ANY FACTUAL BASIS TO SUPPORT IT'S OWN CONCLUSIONS TO TRIAL COUNSELS' ACTIONS ? : 3. THE HOLDING IN Missouri vs. Mcneely,133 S.CT. 1552,185 L.Ed 2d 696 (2013) CLEARLY MANDATES THAT NON-CONSENSUAL : BLOOD DRAWS ABSENT A SEARCH WARRANT VIOLATE AN INDIVIDUALS , FOURTH AMENDMENT CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS , EXCEPT UNDER . EXTREMELY LIMITED THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES ADMISSION OF BLOOD DRAW EVIDENCE AT TRIAL ,OBTAINED WITHOUT ' A WARRANT WOULD BE DEEMED INADMISSIBLE UNDER THE FOURTH AMENDMENT .HOWEVER,IF A STATE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ; DISREGARDS THE MANDATE ISSUED UNDER McNeély.,AND INSTEAD . ASSUMES TRIAL COUNSEL WAS UNAWARE OF THE RECENT HOLDING, ' AND THEREFORE IS NOT REQUIRED TO MAKE AN OBJECTION TO THE INTRODUCTION OF BLOOD DRAW EVIDENGEROBFALNED:. INNCONTRADICTIONN : TO THE RECENT PRECEDENT SET UNDER McNeely ,AND CONCLUDES TRIAL COUNSEL WAS NOT INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO MAKE THE ; ix. . THE APPROPRIATE OBJECTION, CONCLUDING THAT DISPITE THE THE SUPREMECY CLAUSE IMPLICATIONS THE BLOOD DRAW EVIDENCE WAS ADMISSIBLE,BECAUSE NO OBJECTION WAS MADE.WAS THE RESULT OF THE TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS CONCLUSIONS CONTRARY . TO ESTABLISHED UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT PRECENDENT WHICH REQUIRES TRIAL COUNSEL TO BE AWARE OF THE LAW APPLICABLE ; TO A CASE,NAD A CLEAR VIOLATION OF THE SUPREMACY .CLAUSE OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION ? 4, UNDER THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE OF THE UNTIED IT PERMIT A DELAY IN ADOPTING UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT PRECEDENTS ,OR,DOES IT SPECIFY STATES MUST MAKE THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT HOLDINGS IMMEDIATELY AVAILABLE DEFENDANTS WHOSE CONVICTIONS HAVE NOT YET BECOME FINAL ? 5. IF THE TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ARE ALLOWED TO EXCUSE TRIAL COUNSELS' LACK OF KNOWLEDGE OF A RECENT UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT,BECAUSE THE TEXAS ; COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS HAS NOT APPLIED THE RULING TO EXISTING TEXAS LAW,WOULD IT NOT CREATE A LOOPHOLE FOR THE STATE TO DELAY POTENTIAL DEFENSES ,OR ASSERT CONST“ ITUTIONAL RIGHTS ? . FURTHER,WOULD IT NOT ALSO SIMULTANEOUSLY ELIMINATE DEFENSE COUNSELS* DUTY TO STAY APPRISED OF FEDERAL LAW ? ; x. : 6... Since a new rule of criminal procedure announced by the Supreme Court of The United States is applied retroactively to criminal cases that are not yet final,and on direct appeal,with no exceptions,is it required for trial counsel , to be aware of a the new rule of criminal procedure if it ' is announced only two days before a trial is to begin.Is the issue of trial counsels' ineffective assistance to be considered for failing to object based on the new rule,when, : precedent establishes the new rule of criminal procedure would be available to a defendant,if it occured after trial was complete,but before direct appeal was foreclosed ? : xi. ; ;