A defendant has the right to make an informed decision about whether to accept or reject a plea offer. But what happens if the defendant never gets that opportunity because their attorney fails to tell them an offer was made? In some cases, that failure can provide grounds for post-conviction relief.
The right to effective assistance of counsel applies during plea negotiations. Defense attorneys generally have a legal duty to convey formal plea offers from prosecutors, particularly when an offer could result in a lesser charge or sentence. A lawyer who lets a favorable offer expire without telling their client may have, in fact, been ineffective.
Failure to communicate the offer is only part of the claim
In Missouri v. Frye, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed a situation in which an attorney didn’t inform his client about plea offers before they expired. The Court held that defendants hopeful for relief via this type of ineffective-assistance claim must generally show that it was likely that:
- They would have taken the plea if they’d known about it
- The prosecution would have stood firm on the offer
- The court would have accepted the agreement (if approval was required)
- The result for the defendant would have been better than they received at trial
That last part can be really important. A defendant might have gone to trial and received a substantially longer sentence, for example, or eventually pleaded guilty under less favorable terms.
Evidence can become critical
Post-conviction cases involving an uncommunicated plea offer often require looking beyond the record of the original criminal proceedings. Emails, letters, prosecutor records, notes from defense counsel and testimony from the people involved may help establish that an offer existed and what its terms were.
Post-conviction relief can help address constitutional violations that may not become apparent until after the criminal case is over.