Criminal Procedure — ineffective assistance

Listen to this article

United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

Criminal

Criminal Procedure — ineffective assistance

An evidentiary hearing is required where the defendant claims his attorney did not accurately convey the contents of a plea agreement.  “The Supreme Court held in Lafler v. Cooper, 132 S. Ct. 1376 (2012), and Missouri v. Frye, 132 S. Ct. 1399 (2012), that lawyers must tell their clients about offers of plea bargains. Hare v. United States, 688 F.3d 878 (7th Cir. 2012), concludes that these decisions do not create ‘new rules’ and therefore apply on collateral review. The parties assume in this litigation, as we did in Overstreet v. Wilson, 686 F.3d 404 (7th Cir. 2012), that counsel’s obligation entails explaining the material terms of the prosecutor’s offer. Given the parties’ mutual assumption, here as in Overstreet we need not decide whether counsel’s obligation extends to ensuring the client’s understanding of each term’s significance—for the problem here was not Estremera’s failure to grasp what the lawyer told him, but the absence of a review of the offer’s terms plus a false statement about a material part of the offer. See also Julian v. Bartley, 495 F.3d 487 (7th Cir. 2007) (misleading the defendant about an offer’s terms can constitute ineffective assistance). Estremera’s affidavit may not show the whole picture— indeed, it may contain falsehoods. The way to find out what happened is to hold a hearing at which both Estremera and his lawyer can testify about what passed between them before Estremera rejected the offer and decided to go to trial.”

Reversed and Remanded.

12-2043 Estremera v. U.S.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Holderman, J., Easterbrook, J.