New Jersey Criminal Case LAFLER v. COOPER

Facts:

Respondent was charged under Michigan law with assault with intent to murder and three other offenses.

  • The prosecution offered to dismiss two of the charges and to recommend a 51-to-85-month sentence on the other two, in exchange for a guilty plea.
  • Respondent rejected the offer, allegedly after his attorney convinced him that the prosecution would be unable to establish intent to murder because the victim had been shot below the waist.
  • At trial, respondent was convicted on all counts and received a mandatory minimum 185-to-360-month sentence.

Procedural History:

  • In a subsequent hearing, the state trial court rejected respondent’s claim that his attorney’s advice to reject the plea constituted ineffective assistance.
  • The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed, rejecting the ineffective-assistance claim on the ground that respondent knowingly and intelligently turned down the plea offer and chose to go to trial.
  • Finding that the state appellate court had unreasonably applied the constitutional effective assistance standards laid out in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668, and Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U. S. 52, the District Court granted a conditional writ and ordered specific performance of the original plea offer.
  • The Sixth Circuit affirmed. Applying Strickland, it found that counsel had provided deficient performance by advising respondent of an incorrect legal rule, and that respondent suffered prejudice because he lost the opportunity to take the more favorable sentence offered in the plea.

Holding:

  • The Supreme Court held that where counsel’s ineffective advice led to an offer’s rejection, and where the prejudice alleged is having to stand trial, a defendant must show that but for the ineffective advice, there is a reasonable probability that the plea offer would have been presented to the court, that the court would have accepted its terms, and that the conviction or sentence, or both, under the offer’s terms would have been less severe than under the actual judgment and sentence imposed.

Please visit the site of New Jersey Criminal lawyer, Jeffrey Hark for more information on criminal matters in NJ and more cases like this.

5 Responses to “New Jersey Criminal Case LAFLER v. COOPER”

Read below or add a comment...

  1. The Mich Court of Is attractive confirmed, rejecting the ineffective-assistance claim on the ground that participant intentionally and wisely turned down the asking offer and decided to go to trial.

    auto accident attorney milwaukee

  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    • I think this is interesting case for lawyer. In most of criminal cases, case procedure is working slowly. Criminal cases should have been solved quickly.
      Best Domestic Assault Lawyer Toronto

  3. clark howard says:

    I like all details that you provide in your articles.dwi defense lawyers

  4. Randall Willis says:

    I wana thank you for providing instructive and qualitative stuff so often.
    click now

Leave A Comment...

*