Missouri v. Frye case brief summary
132 S.Ct. 1399 (2012)
CASE FACTS
After being charged with driving with a revoked license, the prosecutor sent respondent's counsel two plea bargains. Respondent's counsel did not advise him of the offers, which expired. Prior to the preliminary hearing, respondent was again arrested for driving with a revoked license. He pleaded guilty without an agreement.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the Missouri Court of Appeals and remanded the case for further proceedings. 1 dissent.
Recommended Supplements for Criminal Procedure Criminal Procedure: Examples & Explanations, Sixth Edition
Emanuel Law Outline: Criminal Procedure
132 S.Ct. 1399 (2012)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Respondent, who pleaded guilty to
driving with a revoked license, filed a postconviction relief
petition alleging that his counsel's failure to inform him of a plea
offer denied him Sixth Amendment effective assistance of
counsel. A state court denied the postconviction relief petition, but
the Missouri Court of Appeals reversed. Petitioner, the State of
Missouri, sought review. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari.CASE FACTS
After being charged with driving with a revoked license, the prosecutor sent respondent's counsel two plea bargains. Respondent's counsel did not advise him of the offers, which expired. Prior to the preliminary hearing, respondent was again arrested for driving with a revoked license. He pleaded guilty without an agreement.
DISCUSSION
- On review, the Court reaffirmed that the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance applied to the entry of a guilty plea.
- The Court further held that defense counsel had a duty to communicate formal offers from the prosecution to accept a plea on terms and conditions that might be favorable to an accused; when counsel allowed the offer to expire without advising respondent or allowing him to consider it, counsel did not render constitutionally effective assistance.
- However, under Strickland, respondent had to show prejudice from the ineffective assistance.
- The Court concluded that the state appellate court erred by not requiring respondent to show not only a reasonable probability that he would have accepted the lapsed plea, but also a reasonable probability that the prosecution would have adhered to the plea and that the trial court would have accepted it.
CONCLUSION
In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the Missouri Court of Appeals and remanded the case for further proceedings. 1 dissent.
Recommended Supplements for Criminal Procedure Criminal Procedure: Examples & Explanations, Sixth Edition
Emanuel Law Outline: Criminal Procedure
No comments:
Post a Comment