Missouri v. Frye | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Argued October 31, 2011 Decided March 21, 2012 | |
Full case name | Missouri v. Galin E. Frye |
Docket no. | 10-444 |
Citations | 566 U.S. 134 ( more ) 132 S. Ct. 1399, 182 L. Ed. 2d 379 (2012). |
Argument | Oral argument |
Opinion announcement | Opinion announcement |
Holding | |
"Defense counsel has the duty to communicate formal offers from the prosecution to accept a plea on terms and conditions that may be favorable to the accused." [1] | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Kennedy, joined by Breyer, Ginsburg, Kagan, and Sotomayor |
Dissent | Scalia, joined by Alito, Roberts, and Thomas |
Laws applied | |
U.S. Const. amends. VI, XIV |
Missouri v. Galin E. Frye, 566 U.S. 134 (2012), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that attorneys of criminal defendants have the duty to communicate plea bargains offered to the accused. [1]
In August 2007, Galin Frye was arrested and charged with driving without a license for the third time, making it a felony in Missouri. The prosecutor in the case sent Frye's attorney two plea offers; one to recommend a three-year sentence with Frye serving only ten days in jail if he pleaded guilty to the felony, and the second to reduce the felony to a misdemeanor, and Frye to serve 90 days in jail. Despite these offers being made, Frye's attorney never notified him about them and they expired before being acted upon. Frye was arrested again for driving with a suspended license shortly before his preliminary hearing, after the offers had expired. He pleaded guilty to the new charge, and was sentenced to three years in prison. [2]
Frye filed for postconviction relief, claiming that his attorney's failure to communicate the plea offers denied him of his right to effective counsel. [2] At a preliminary hearing, he testified that had he known about the plea bargain offers, he would have pleaded guilty to the misdemeanor charge. His appeal was denied by a state court, but the decision was reversed by the Missouri Court of Appeals. [3]
The reversal was then appealed by the State of Missouri to the United States Supreme Court. In oral arguments, Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster argued that Frye's guilty plea was "voluntary, intelligent, and final" under Hill v. Lockhart and Premo v. Moore . He further argued that plea negotiations "are not a critical stage because ... the fate of the accused is not set", and as such the defendant is not necessarily entitled to counsel under the Sixth Amendment in this stage. [4]
Emmett Queener, Frye's counsel, argued that "fundamental fairness and reliability of criminal process requires that an attorney provide his client information regarding matters in this case". [5] He said that Frye's plea was "unknowing and involuntary" because he was not made aware of all options that were available, including the plea bargain that was offered. [6]
The majority opinion, authored by Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, ruled in favor of Frye. In the opinion announcement, Kennedy said that, while there is no right to a plea bargain, because "nearly 95% of convictions result from a plea bargain ... this Court is unwilling to say that within that system [of plea bargaining], counsel's performance does not matter". [7] He noted that even if ineffective counsel is shown in this case, Frye would still need to show prejudice as set out in Strickland v. Washington to obtain relief. The Court held that "defense counsel has the duty to communicate formal offers from the prosecution to accept a plea on terms and conditions that may be favorable to the accused". [1] The ruling of the Missouri Court of Appeals was vacated and the case was remanded. [8]
An Alford plea, in United States law, is a guilty plea in criminal court, whereby a defendant in a criminal case does not admit to the criminal act and asserts innocence. In entering an Alford plea, the defendant admits that the evidence presented by the prosecution would be likely to persuade a judge or jury to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Nolo contendere is a legal term that comes from the Latin phrase for "I do not wish to contend". It is also referred to as a plea of no contest.
A plea bargain is any agreement in a criminal case between the prosecutor and defendant whereby the defendant agrees to plead guilty or nolo contendere to a particular charge in return for some concession from the prosecutor. This may mean that the defendant will plead guilty to a less serious charge, or to one of the several charges, in return for the dismissal of other charges; or it may mean that the defendant will plead guilty to the original criminal charge in return for a more lenient sentence.
In legal terms, a plea is simply an answer to a claim made by someone in a criminal case under common law using the adversarial system. Colloquially, a plea has come to mean the assertion by a defendant at arraignment, or otherwise in response to a criminal charge, whether that person pleaded or pled guilty, not guilty, nolo contendere, no case to answer, or Alford plea.
Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court unanimously held that in criminal cases states are required under the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to provide an attorney to defendants who are unable to afford their own attorneys. The case extended the right to counsel, which had been found under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to impose requirements on the federal government, by imposing those requirements upon the states as well.
North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed that there are no constitutional barriers in place to prevent a judge from accepting a guilty plea from a defendant who wants to plead guilty while still protesting his innocence under duress as a detainee status. This type of plea has become known as an Alford plea, differing slightly from the nolo contendere plea in which the defendant agrees to being sentenced for the crime, but does not admit guilt. Alford died in prison in 1975.
In United States law, ineffective assistance of counsel is a claim raised by a convicted criminal defendant asserting that the defendant's legal counsel performed so ineffectively that it deprived the defendant of the constitutional right guaranteed by the Assistance of Counsel Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Ineffectiveness claims may only be brought where the defendant had the right to counsel, ordinarily during the “critical stages” of a prosecution. Having the "benefit of counsel" or "assistance of counsel" means that the criminal defendant has had a competent attorney representing them. Competence is defined as reasonable professional assistance and is defined in part by prevailing professional norms and standards. To prove they received ineffective assistance, a criminal defendant must show two things:
Wilson v. State, 652 S.E. 2d 501, 282 Ga. 520 (2007) was a Georgia court case brought about to appeal the aggravated child molestation conviction of Genarlow Wilson.
Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263 (1980), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld a life sentence with the possibility of parole under Texas' three strikes law for a felony fraud crime, where the offense and the defendant's two prior offenses involved approximately $230 of fraudulent activity.
Emmet Gael Sullivan is an American attorney and jurist serving as a United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
Padilla v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court decided that criminal defense attorneys must advise noncitizen clients about the deportation risks of a guilty plea. The case extended the Supreme Court's prior decisions on criminal defendants' Sixth Amendment right to counsel to immigration consequences.
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), was a United States Supreme Court case in which a court-appointed attorney filed a motion to withdraw from the appeal of a criminal case because of his belief that any grounds for appeal were frivolous.
Plea bargaining in the United States is very common; the vast majority of criminal cases in the United States are settled by plea bargain rather than by a jury trial. They have also been increasing in frequency—they rose from 84% of federal cases in 1984 to 94% by 2001. Plea bargains are subject to the approval of the court, and different States and jurisdictions have different rules. Game theory has been used to analyze the plea bargaining decision.
The Assistance of Counsel Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right...to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."
Burt v. Titlow, 571 U.S. ___ (2013), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that when a state court makes a factual determination the federal courts must defer to its judgment so long as it is reasonable.
Chaidez v. United States, 568 U.S. 342 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court case that determined that the ruling in Padilla v. Commonwealth of Kentucky could not be applied retroactively, because the Padilla case applied a new rule to the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Padilla v. Kentucky held that the Sixth Amendment made it mandatory for criminal defense attorneys to advise non-citizen clients about the deportation risks of a guilty plea. While Padilla v. Kentucky was a case related to immigration and deportation, Justice Scalia worried that there was "no logical stopping point" to how Padilla v. Commonwealth of Kentucky can be applied. Justice Scalia wondered if the same logic could be extended and applied to numerous other cases, and felt it would be impossible for attorneys to make sure any client was informed of all the potential legal consequences post trial.
Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court clarified the Sixth Amendment standard for reversing convictions due to ineffective assistance of counsel during plea bargaining. The Court ruled that when a lawyer's ineffective assistance leads to the rejection of a plea agreement, a defendant is entitled to relief if the outcome of the plea process would have been different with competent advice. In such cases, the Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment requires the trial judge to exercise discretion to determine an appropriate remedy.
United States v. Flynn was a criminal case in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Michael Flynn, a retired Lieutenant General in the United States Armed Forces, had accepted President-elect Donald Trump's offer for the position of National Security Advisor in 2016 and then briefly served as National Security Advisor. He pleaded guilty to one count of making false statements to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Flynn's alleged false statements involve conversations he had with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak when Flynn was incoming National Security Advisor to President-elect Trump, and Flynn agreed to cooperate with the Special Counsel investigation as part of a plea deal.