Term: 2011
Docket: 10-444
Missouri, Petitioner v. Galin E. Frye
- Pro
10-444 MISSOURI V. FRYE DECISION BELOW: 311 S.W.3d 350 IN ADDITION TO THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED BY THE PETITIONS THE PARTIES ARE DIRECTED TO BRIEF AND ARGUE THE FOLLOWING QUESTION: "WHAT REMEDY, IF ANY, SHOULD BE PROVIDED FOR INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL DURING PLEA BARGAIN NEGOTIATIONS IF THE DEFENDANT WAS LATER CONVICTED AND SENTENCED PURSUANT TO CONSTITUTIONALLY ADEQUATE PROCEDURES?" CERT. GRANTED 1/7/2011 QUESTION PRESENTED: Contrary to the holding in Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (985) - which held that a defendant must allege that, but for counsel's error, the defendant would have gone to trial - can a defendant who validly pleads guilty successfully assert a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel by alleging instead that, but for counsel's error in failing to communicate a plea offer, he would have pleaded guilty with more favorable terms? LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: WD70504
In the case of Missouri v. Frye, 2011, Galin E. Frye was charged with driving with a revoked license and his attorney failed to inform him about a plea deal offered by the prosecution that would have significantly reduced his potential sentence. Instead, he pleaded guilty without any agreement in place and received a harsher sentence than what was proposed in the plea offer. The Supreme Court ruled that Frye's counsel's failure to communicate this plea offer constituted ineffective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment right to effective legal representation. However, it also noted that defendants must demonstrate they were prejudiced as a result of their lawyer’s deficient performance - meaning they must show there is reasonable probability they would have accepted the earlier plea bargain if properly advised by their lawyers.
In the dissenting opinion for Missouri v. Frye, Justice Scalia, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Thomas, argued that a defendant's right to effective counsel does not include the right to be informed of plea offers that have lapsed or been rejected. They contended that once a plea offer has expired or been turned down, it is no longer part of the potential outcomes of a case and thus falls outside the scope of legal representation required under the Sixth Amendment. The dissenters also expressed concern about creating an incentive for defense attorneys to document every aspect of their work in order to protect themselves from claims they failed to communicate plea offers adequately. Furthermore, they questioned how courts could reliably determine whether defendants would have accepted past offers had they known about them.
