Home › Case briefs › Criminal Procedure

Lafler v. Cooper

Supreme Court of the United States · 2012 · Criminal Procedure

Criminal ProcedureSixth Amendmentplea bargainingineffective assistancerejection of pleaSixth Amendmentineffective assistance of counselplea bargaining

Facts

Respondent was charged under Michigan law with assault with intent to murder, firearm offenses, marijuana possession, and habitual offender status after he shot at Kali Mundy and then fired repeatedly as she fled, hitting her in the buttock, hip, and abdomen. The prosecution twice offered to dismiss two charges and recommend a sentence of 51 to 85 months on the other two in exchange for a guilty plea, and respondent communicated to the court that he admitted guilt and was willing to accept the offer. He later rejected the offers after counsel advised that the prosecution could not establish intent to murder because the victim had been shot below the waist. Respondent then went to trial, was convicted on all counts, and received a mandatory minimum sentence of 185 to 360 months.

Issue

When ineffective assistance of counsel causes a defendant to reject a favorable plea offer and the defendant is later convicted at a fair trial and receives a harsher sentence, can the defendant establish Strickland prejudice? If so, what showing is required and what remedy is appropriate?

Rule

Where ineffective advice leads to rejection of a plea offer, a defendant shows Strickland prejudice by demonstrating a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's deficient advice, the plea offer would have been presented to the court, the defendant would have accepted it, the prosecution would not have withdrawn it in light of intervening circumstances, the court would have accepted its terms, and the conviction or sentence, or both, under the plea would have been less severe than the judgment and sentence actually imposed. The remedy must neutralize the taint of the constitutional violation without granting a windfall or needlessly squandering state resources; in some cases that remedy is to require the prosecution to reoffer the plea.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Phoenix, Mateo Ruiz was charged with armed robbery and a weapons enhancement. The prosecutor offered to dismiss the enhancement and recommend 4 years if Mateo pleaded guilty, but his lawyer incorrectly told him the surveillance video was legally inadmissible and he should reject the offer; Mateo then went to trial, was convicted, and received 11 years after a constitutionally proper trial.

Mateo later claims ineffective assistance during plea bargaining. Which is the strongest statement of the prejudice inquiry?

Explanation. The majority held that a fair trial does not automatically wipe out prejudice caused by deficient plea advice. When ineffective advice causes rejection of a plea, the defendant must show a reasonable probability that he would have accepted the plea, the prosecution would not have withdrawn it in light of intervening circumstances, the plea would have been presented to the court, the court would have accepted it, and the conviction or sentence under the plea would have been less severe.