Caseflicks

Supreme Court of the United States • 2012

Lafler v. Cooper

132 S. Ct. 1376 | 182 L. Ed. 2d 398 | 2012 U.S. LEXIS 2322 | 566 U.S. 156

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case holds that bad plea advice can establish Sixth Amendment prejudice even after a fair trial, if it likely caused rejection of a plea that would have produced a less severe outcome.

Background

Anthony Cooper was charged in Michigan with assault with intent to murder, firearm offenses, marijuana possession, and habitual-offender status after he shot Kali Mundy multiple times. The prosecution twice offered to dismiss two charges and recommend a 51-to-85-month sentence if Cooper pleaded guilty to the remaining charges. Cooper initially expressed willingness to accept, but rejected the offer after his lawyer advised that a shot below the waist could not establish intent to murder.

Cooper went to trial, was convicted on all counts, and received a mandatory minimum sentence of 185 to 360 months—more than three and a half times the minimum sentence contemplated by the plea offer. Michigan courts rejected his ineffective-assistance claim, reasoning that he had knowingly and voluntarily rejected the plea and chosen trial.

On federal habeas review, the District Court held that the state court had unreasonably applied Strickland v. Washington and ordered specific performance of the original plea agreement. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. Before the Supreme Court, the parties agreed that counsel's plea advice was deficient; the central questions were prejudice, the appropriate remedy, and whether AEDPA barred relief.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether a defendant can establish Strickland prejudice when deficient legal advice causes rejection of a favorable plea offer, followed by a fair trial and a harsher sentence.

Holding

Yes. A fair trial does not eliminate prejudice from ineffective assistance during plea bargaining when the defendant lost a favorable plea opportunity and received a more severe conviction or sentence.

Reasoning

The Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance applies at critical stages of a criminal case, including plea negotiations. Its function is not confined to ensuring that the eventual trial itself is fair; counsel is also required when defendants make consequential decisions before trial, such as whether to accept a plea offer.

For a rejected-plea claim, the defendant must show a reasonable probability that, absent counsel's deficient advice, he would have accepted the offer; the prosecution would not have withdrawn it; the trial court would have accepted its terms; and the conviction, sentence, or both under the plea would have been less severe than the actual judgment after trial.

The Court rejected the argument that a constitutionally fair trial automatically cures an earlier plea-bargaining error. Here, trial was not a cure for the error: it was the event that produced the injury, because Cooper lost a substantially lower sentencing outcome that competent advice likely would have secured.

Lockhart v. Fretwell did not alter Strickland's ordinary reasonable-probability test in this setting. Fretwell prevents a defendant from claiming prejudice based on a legal windfall to which he was never entitled. Cooper, by contrast, claimed the loss of a legitimate plea offer that the prosecution itself had made and that he likely would have accepted with competent advice.

The Court also emphasized the practical setting of modern criminal justice. Because the overwhelming majority of convictions result from guilty pleas, effective assistance cannot be meaningfully protected if courts treat a fair trial as a blanket cure for counsel's deficient performance during plea bargaining.

Issue #2

What remedy is appropriate when ineffective assistance caused a defendant to reject a plea offer and later receive a harsher result at trial.

Holding

The remedy must neutralize the constitutional injury without granting a windfall; where necessary, a court may require the prosecution to reoffer the plea, after which the trial judge has discretion over whether and how to accept it and alter the trial judgment.

Reasoning

Sixth Amendment remedies must be tailored to the injury. They should restore, as far as practical, the position lost through ineffective assistance, while also respecting the State's legitimate interest in the resources already spent investigating and trying the case.

When the only lost benefit was a lower sentence on the same charges, an evidentiary hearing and resentencing may be sufficient. If the defendant proves that he would have accepted the offer, the court may impose the plea-offer sentence, the trial sentence, or a sentence between them, as the circumstances warrant.

Resentencing alone may be inadequate when the plea would have involved less serious charges or when a mandatory sentence tied to the trial convictions restricts the judge's sentencing authority. In those circumstances, requiring the prosecution to reoffer the plea can be the proper remedy.

After a plea is reoffered and accepted, the trial court retains discretion to decide whether to vacate all or some trial convictions and resentence under the plea, or to leave the trial convictions and sentence in place. In exercising that discretion, the court may consider the defendant's earlier willingness to accept responsibility and need not necessarily ignore relevant information discovered after the original offer.

Issue #3

Whether AEDPA barred federal habeas relief, and whether Cooper satisfied Strickland on the record before the Court.

Holding

No. The Michigan Court of Appeals decided Cooper's claim contrary to clearly established federal law by failing to apply Strickland, and Cooper established both deficient performance and prejudice.

Reasoning

AEDPA permits habeas relief when a state-court merits decision is contrary to, or unreasonably applies, clearly established Supreme Court precedent. The Michigan Court of Appeals treated the fact that Cooper knowingly and voluntarily rejected the plea as dispositive, rather than applying Strickland's deficient-performance and prejudice framework to his claim.

A knowing rejection of a plea does not answer whether the rejection was caused by constitutionally inadequate legal advice. The state court therefore used the wrong inquiry and also mischaracterized Cooper's claim as a complaint that counsel failed to obtain a better bargain.

The parties conceded deficient performance. Cooper also showed a reasonable probability that he and the trial court would have accepted the original plea. His actual mandatory minimum sentence was three and a half times the minimum contemplated by the offer, establishing the required adverse difference in outcome.

The District Court's order of specific performance went too far because it left no room for the trial court's remedial discretion. The Court therefore vacated the Sixth Circuit's judgment and remanded with instructions that Michigan reoffer the plea agreement, leaving the state trial court to determine the appropriate final disposition.

Dissents

Justice Scalia

Reasoning

Justice Scalia argued that the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance exists to secure a fair trial and a reliable conviction or sentence. Because Cooper received a full and fair jury trial, a lawful conviction, and the prescribed sentence, Scalia concluded that counsel's poor plea advice did not create constitutionally cognizable Strickland prejudice.

In his view, the Court improperly transformed a contextual phrase from Strickland—whether the result of the proceeding would have differed—into an entitlement to effective plea bargaining. Strickland, Lockhart v. Fretwell, and Williams v. Taylor instead required attention to the fundamental fairness and reliability of the challenged proceeding, not merely to whether a defendant might have received a better bargain.

Scalia also maintained that AEDPA independently foreclosed relief. The Michigan Court of Appeals recited the Strickland standard, and its somewhat unclear application should not be treated as a decision contrary to clearly established federal law. In any event, the Supreme Court had never clearly held that rejection of a plea followed by a fair trial could establish Strickland prejudice.

He criticized the majority's remedy as incoherent. Ordering the State to reoffer a plea while allowing the trial judge ultimately to leave the trial convictions and sentence untouched, he argued, is an unusual and discretionary remedy for what the Court calls a constitutional violation. He warned that the decision constitutionalized plea bargaining and invited a broad new field of litigation over plea negotiations.

Justice Alito

Reasoning

Justice Alito joined the core of Justice Scalia's analysis: Cooper had a trial free of identified constitutional error, so he suffered no Strickland prejudice, and AEDPA barred habeas relief. He viewed the majority's contrary rule as a misapplication of ineffective-assistance doctrine.

Alito focused especially on remedy. If losing a favorable plea offer is itself a Sixth Amendment injury, he reasoned, the logical remedy would be to give the defendant the original deal. But that result could be seriously unjust when new evidence later reveals greater culpability or when rejecting the offer caused the State and courts to spend substantial resources trying the case.

Because the majority avoided that direct remedy and instead gave lower courts broad discretion, Alito thought its rule lacked a principled remedial foundation. He hoped lower courts would use their discretion to limit unjust results, but concluded that the Court should not have created the constitutional rule in the first place.