Home › Case briefs › Criminal Procedure

Missouri v. Frye

Supreme Court of the United States · 2012 · Criminal Procedure

Criminal ProcedureSixth Amendmentplea bargainingineffective assistancefailure to communicate offerSixth Amendmenteffective assistance of counselStrickland

Facts

Missouri charged Frye with felony driving with a revoked license because he had three prior convictions for that offense. The prosecutor sent Frye's counsel a written letter offering two plea bargains, including an offer to reduce the charge to a misdemeanor with a recommended 90-day sentence, and the letter stated the offers would expire on December 28. Counsel did not inform Frye of the offers, and they lapsed. After Frye was arrested again for driving with a revoked license shortly before his preliminary hearing, he later pleaded guilty without a plea agreement and received a three-year prison sentence.

Issue

Does the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel apply to formal plea offers that lapse because counsel fails to communicate them to the defendant? If so, what must a defendant show to establish Strickland prejudice when the lost opportunity was a more favorable plea offer rather than a trial?

Rule

The Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel extends to the consideration of formal plea offers that lapse or are rejected. As a general rule, defense counsel must communicate formal prosecution offers to accept a plea on terms and conditions that may be favorable to the accused. To show prejudice when a plea offer lapses or is rejected because of deficient performance, a defendant must show a reasonable probability that he would have accepted the earlier offer, that the prosecution would not have canceled it and the trial court would not have refused it if they had such discretion under state law, and that the end result of the criminal process would have been more favorable by reason of a lesser charge or less prison time.

🔒

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 Columbus, Ohio, a prosecutor emailed defense lawyer Nina Patel a signed written offer: if Devin Cross pleaded guilty within 7 days, the state would reduce a burglary charge to attempted burglary and recommend 6 months in jail. Patel misplaced the email, never told Devin about it, and the offer expired; Devin later pleaded guilty as charged and received 18 months.

If Devin seeks postconviction relief on ineffective-assistance grounds, which is the strongest argument that counsel performed deficiently under the Sixth Amendment?

Explanation. The majority held that, as a general rule, defense counsel must communicate formal prosecution offers to accept a plea on terms that may be favorable to the accused. A written offer with a fixed expiration date squarely triggers that duty. The existence of a later trial or later plea does not eliminate deficiency, and the Constitution does not require that the offer already be filed in court before counsel must communicate it.