Term: 2013
Docket: 12-414
Burt v. Titlow
- Pro
12-414 BURT V. TITLOW DECISION BELOW: 680 F.3d 577 CERT. GRANTED 2/25/2013 QUESTION PRESENTED: This case presents three questions involving· AEDPA (the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996), and Lafler v. Cooper, 132 S. Ct. 1376 (2012), this Court's recent decision expanding ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims to include rejected plea offers: 1. Whether the Sixth Circuit failed to give appropriate deference to a Michigan state court under AEDPA in holding that defense counsel was constitutionally ineffective for allowing Respondent to maintain his claim of innocence. 2. Whether a convicted defendant's subjective testimony that he would have accepted a plea but for ineffective assistance, is, standing alone, sufficient to demonstrate a reasonable probability that defendant would have accepted the plea. 3. Whether Lafler always requires a state trial court to resentence a defendant who shows a reasonable probability that he would have accepted a plea offer but for ineffective assistance, and to do so in such a way as to "remedy" the violation of the defendant's constitutional right. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 10-2488
In Burt v. Titlow, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled on a case involving ineffective assistance of counsel in plea bargaining. Vonlee Nicole Titlow was charged with murder and initially agreed to a plea deal that would have resulted her serving 7-15 years in prison. However, she later withdrew from this agreement after hiring a new attorney who advised against it without fully understanding the details of the case or consulting with her previous lawyer. As a result, Titlow went to trial and received a sentence of 20-40 years imprisonment instead. Titlow appealed this decision claiming ineffective assistance by her second lawyer for advising withdrawal from an advantageous plea bargain without proper investigation into its merits or drawbacks; thus violating her Sixth Amendment rights which guarantees effective legal representation for defendants in criminal cases. The Supreme Court held that there was no constitutional violation because even though counsel's performance may have been deficient, it did not prejudice defendant’s outcome as she had not shown reasonable probability that but for counsel's errors she would've accepted original offer and prosecution wouldn't have withdrawn it nor court prevented its implementation.
In the dissenting opinion for Burt v. Titlow, Justice Sonia Sotomayor argued that the majority's decision failed to properly apply federal law regarding habeas corpus petitions and was overly deferential to state court decisions. She contended that Vonlee Titlow received ineffective legal counsel when her attorney advised her to withdraw a guilty plea without fully understanding the evidence against her or explaining it adequately. This lack of due diligence by Titlow’s lawyer, according to Sotomayor, constituted deficient performance under Strickland v. Washington (1984). The justice also disagreed with the majority's conclusion that there was no reasonable probability of a different outcome had she not withdrawn her plea; in fact, she believed there were serious questions about whether Titlow would have proceeded to trial if properly informed about potential sentences and strength of prosecution’s case.
