Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 4 7.5 , the court has determined that thisopinion should not be published * and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forthin 5 TH C IR . R. 4 7.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 07- 30772
PAU L H. W I LL P et i t i on er- A pp el l ee v. BURL CAI N, W ARDEN, L OUI S I ANA S TA TE P ENI TE NTIARY R esp on d en t -A p p ell a n t

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i tedS tates D i stri ct C ou rt f ort he E as t er n D i st r i c tof Loui si ana U SD C N o. 2: 06- C V

- 2007

B ef ore JO L L Y , D eM O S S , an d P R A D O , C i rcui tJu dg es . P E R C U R I A M: * T h e S tate a p p ea l s th e d i stri ct cou rt’ s g r a n t of w ri t of h a b ea s corp u s to ap pel l ee PaulH
. W i l l
. W i l li s c ur r e nt l y s e r vi ng l i fe i n pr i s o n f o ra gg r av at ed ki dna ppi ng i n t he Lo ui s i anaSt at e Pe ni t e nt i ar y i n Ango l a, Lo ui s i ana . The di st r i c tc our tgr ant ed hi s pet i t i on f orw r i tof

habeas c or pus due t o i nef fec t ive a s s is ta n c e o f c o u n s e l, a fte rfin d in gth a t W ill’ s tr ia l co u n s e l fa ile dto in fo r m h im
o f a p le a o ffe ro f tw e n ty to th ir ty y e a r s . B e c a u s e th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e r r o n e o u s ly United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D October 9, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkNo. 07- 30772

2 in te r p r e te ds ta te co u r t fin d in g s , w e re v e r s e a n dre n d e r .

I . F A CT UA L A ND P ROC E DUR A L B A CK GRO UND A . Tri al Thi s c ase invol ve s a n a gg r av at e d k i dna ppi ng c r o s s i ng s t at e l i ne s . The gr and j ury i ndi c t ed W i l l f oraggr avat ed ki dnappi ng and a l es se ri ncl uded c harge
o f s e c o n dd e g r e e k id n a p p in g . W ill p r o c e e d e dto tr ia l o n th e t h e o r yth a t h is
a c tio n s d idn o t m e e t t h e d e f i n i tio n o f a g g r a v a te dk id n a p p in ga n de s s e n tia lly conceded hi s gui l ton the l esseri n cl u ded charge. Th e j u ry f ou n d h i m gu i l t y of
a g g ra v a te dk id n a p p in g . W il l re ce ive dth e sta tu to rily -m a n d a te dse n te n ce of li fe i n pr i s o n. W i l la ppe al e d. B . P os t - Tri alP r oce edi ngs Af t e rt r i al , W i l l ’ s a ppe alf o l l o w e d a som e w hatunus ualc o ur s e . The appel l at e c our ts t ayed hi s appealand r em anded t o t he t r i alc our tf oran e vi de nt i ar y he ar i ng o n whet he rt he pr o s e c ut i o n ha d o f fe r e d apl e a agreem e nt t h at had nev er been c o n v e y ed to W i l l
. Th e t ri alcourthel d an evi den t i ary hear i ng w her e pro se c ut i ng at t or ney C or nel i us R egan, W i l l ’ s t r i alc ounse lJul i an M ur r ay , a nd W i l lt e s t i f i e d r e ga r di ng t he a l l e ge d p l e a o f fe r . The t r i alc o ur tm ad e n o fact u alf

i n di n gs. A f

t er t h e evi den t i ary h eari n g, t h e ap pel l ate court af f i rm ed t he c o nvi c t i o n a nd s e nt e nc e , b utde c l i ne d t o m ak e fac t ualf i ndi ngs b as e d o n t he evi den t i ary h eari n g. I treasoned th a t t h e p l ea agreem en ti ssue rel ated t o a p oten ti a li n effective a ssistan ce of cou n sel cl a i m an d sh ou l d b e h a n d l ed i n po stc o n v ic tio n re lie f. T h e L o u is ia n a S u p r e m e C o u r t d e n ie dW ill’ s p e tit io n fo rw r it
o f c e r tio r a r i. W i l l f i l e d an ap pl i c at i o n f

o r po s t
- c o nvi c t i o n r e l i e f i n t he s t at e c o ur t
. The t r i alc o u rtm ad e fac t ualf i ndi ngs b as e d o n t he e ar l i e re vi de nt i ar y he ar i ng andNo. 07- 30772

3 den i ed rel i ef
. W i l lex h au st ed h i s app eal s i n t h e L ou i si an a st ate c ou rt s t h en f i l ed t h i s f ederalp et i t i on forw ri tof ha beas corpu s al l egi n g i n suff i ci en cy of

evi den ce t o prove agg ravated kidna pp i n g (t h ou gh adm it t i ng t he e l e m e nt s o f s e c o nd d e gree k id n a p p in g) a n din e ffe c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f c o u n s e l. T h e courtgran t ed W i l l ’ s hab eas peti t i on . Th e di st ri ctcourtrul ed there
w as s uf f i c i entev i denc e t o f

i nd t hatthe el em ent s of aggr avat ed ki dnappi ng had be e n s at i s f

i e d. W i l ldo e s no tappe alt hatdec i s i o n. The di s t r i c tco ur tal s o f o und t hatt he pr os ec ut i ng at t or ney had m ade apl ea of fer t o W i l l ’ s t r i alc ounse lt hat tri a lcou n sel fa i l ed to con ve y to W il l
. T h e d i stri ct cou rt f ou n dtha t t h e sta te
c o u r t’s d e c is io n d e n y in gre lie f d e s p ite th e p le a o ffe r“in v o lv e da n u n r e a s o n a b le
a p p l i c a t i o n o f, c l e a r l ye s t a b l i s h e dF e d e r a ll a w , a s d e t e r mi n e db yt h e S u p r e me C our tof the U ni t ed Stat es . ” 28 U
. S. C
. § 2254( d) ( 1)
. The di st r i c tc our tr ul ed t hat fa il u r e t o in fo r m W il l o f t h e p le a o ffe rp r eju d ic e dW il l u n d e rth e S u p r e m e C o u r t ’s i ne f fe c t ive assi st anc e o f

c o uns e lj ur i s pr ude nc e b e c aus e W i l l ’ s t e s t i m o ny att he evi den t i ary h eari n g show ed h e w ou l d h ave taken t h e of fer. T h e courtvacated t he con vi ct i on a nd s e nt e nc e , a nd o r de r e d t hatW i l lb e r e l e as e d f r o m c us t o dy
w i t hi n ni net y days un l es s t he S t at e of fer ed a pl ea of

ferw i t h t he s am e m at er i al t er m s of t he pl ea of feri tt ender ed be f

or e t r i al
. The St at e m ove d t o s t ay j udg m e ntpe ndi ng ap pe al , a nd t he di s t r i c tc o ur tg r ant e d t he m o t i o n. C . Th e Pl ea O f

f er Th e par t i es di sput e w het herA ss i st antD i st r i c tA t t or ney Cornel i us Regan
m a d e a p lea offe r to d e fen se co u n se l Ju li a n M u r ra y . W il l f irstlea rn e dof a po s s ibl e p l ea o f

fe rw he n, i n t he ne w s pa pe rt he da y af t e rhi s c o nvi c t i o n, t he vi c t i m a nd h e rfam i l y w e r e q uo t e d as “ w o nde r [i ng] w hy W i l l
. . . di dn’ ta c c e ptt he 20-year sentence t h at w as of fer e d to hi m i n a pl ea agreem en t
. ” W i l laskedNo. 07- 30772

Aggravated

kidna ppingc ar rieswith itamandatory

s entenc e of

lifein pri son. The deci sion

to 1 proc eed asan aggravated kidna ppingf oreclo se s any

p os sibility

o f a plea o ff er . 4 M urr ay about t he pl ea of fer . Thi s pro m pt ed M urr ay t o w r i t e al et t ert o Regan
a sk i n g th a t he con fi rm tha t R eg a n m a d e n o su ch off er. M u rra y w rote th a t: [ a] f t e rt al ki ng w i t h t he [vi c t i m a nd he rfam i l y] y o u c al l e d m e a nd t ol d m e t h at the deci si on w as m ad e b y t h e D i st ri ctA t t orney’ s O f f i ce t o proceed t o prosecute t h e case as an agg ravated kidna pp i n g. Y ou di d m ent i on i n pass i ng t hat you t hought t he [vi c t i m and herfam i l y] w ou l d l i ke to s ee P au ldo 20 to 30 years i n j ai l , bu tt h at w as nev er p r e s e n te da s a n o ffe r . I do notm ean t o s ugges tt hati f i t had been an o f

feri tw oul d have been one that I w ou l d h ave recom m en ded as bei n g reasona bl e, or o n e th a t m y c lie n t w o u ld h a v e c o n s id e r e d a c c e p ta b le
. H o w e v e r , it w o ul d ha ve b e e n an of fe rw hi c h I w o ul d ha ve b e e n e t hi c al l y bo und to co n v e yto m yclie n t. I th e r e fo r e w o u ld a p p r e c ia te it if y o u w o u ld confi rm t o m e i n w ri t i n g t h at att h e t i m e of our conversa tion you tol dm e th a t t h e D i stri ct A ttorn ey ’ s O ff i ce h a dd eterm i n ed to pro c ee d w i t h t he c as e a s an aggr avat ed ki dnappi ng. 1 R e g a n d idn o t r e s p o n dto th e le tt e r . Ther e i s a l s o a m i nut e en t ry fr om a pr e - t r i alhe ar i ng r e ad i ng “ [t ] he d e fe n d a n t h a s re fu s e d a n y p le a o ffe r , fo llo w in gs e tt in gis ap r io r itys e tt in g .” H ow ever, t h e ac c o m pa nying aud i o t r ans c r i ptc ap t ur e s M ur r ay stat i n g “ [ w ] e w ere i n t o uc h wi t h t he D i s t r i c tA t t orne y’ s O f f i c e up unt i lThur s da y t o de t e r m i ne w het herornott hi s m at t erc oul d be r es olved by a pl ea. I t w as det er m i ned t hat i tcoul d n ot be. ” A s t h i s i s t h e on l y ref erence i n t h at heari n g t o pl ea dis cussi on s, i ti s c l ear t h e m i n u t e entry s i m pl y m i sst ated t h e proceedi n gs. A tt h e p ost
- t ri alev i den t i ary h eari n g, M u rray t est i f i ed that he w as “ n ever give n a ny t e r m o f

y e ar s b y t he D
. A. ’ s of f i ce ” b utt hat“ [t ] he r e w e r e di s c us s i o ns i n w h i ch I ha d reco m m en d ed a certa i n n u m b er of ye a rs I w ou l dreco m m en dtoNo. 07- 30772

5 m yclie n t
. I n e v e r to ldth e m h e w o u ld n ’ t t a k e a n y th in go th e rth a n th a t . .
. . ” M u rray t est i f

i ed that he w ou l d hav e recom m en ded t en years, bu tt h at he nev er got t o t h e poi n tw h ere he w ou l d m ak e a r e com m en da t i on t o hi s c l i en tbecau se t he D
. A. ’ s O f

f i c e ’ s i nf o r m e d h i m t he y w e r e g o i ng t o pr o c e e d t o t r i alw i t h t he agg ravated kidna pp i n g cha rge. R e g a n te s tifie dth a t t h e D .A .’ s O ffic e b r o u g h t in th e v ic tim ’ s fa m ily becau se he w an t ed to ascert ai n i f t h ey w ou l d feelcom f ort able w i t h a pl ea of fer. T h e fam i l y respond ed that i tw ou l d be com f ort able w i t h t w en t y t o t h i rt y years. R eaga n rec al l ed that du ri n g a ph on e con versat i on w i t h M u rray, he m en t i on ed t ha t t h e fa m i l y wo u l d b e i n t e r e s t e d i n a p l e a f r o m t we n t y t o t h i r t y y e ar s , b ut th a t M u rra y in form ed h i m tha t his cl i en t w ou l dn ot acc ep t m ore tha n thre e to fi v e y e a r s . R e g a n a ls o te s t if ie dth a tin o r d e rto m a k e a p l e a o f fe r , t h e D .A .’s O f f i c e w o ul d ha ve ha d t o r e duc e t he c har ge s b e c aus e aggrav ate d k i dna ppi ng carri ed a m an da t ory l i fe sentence, a n d t h e D
. A
. ’ s O f f i ce w as n otw i l l i n g t o reduce t h e charge u n l ess i tkn ew t h at he w as goi n g t o acceptt w en t y t o t h i rt y years. R e g a n t e s t if

ie d t h a t h e h a d n o t r e s p o n d e dto M u r r a y ’s le t t e rb e c a u s e “[ h e ] d id n ’t fe e l it n e e d e da n yre s p o n s e .” O n pos t
- c o nvi c t i o n re l i e f, t he st at e di s t r i c tc o ur tr e vi e w e d t he t r ans c r i pt of t h e evi den t i ary h eari n g an d m ad e t h e f ol l ow i n g f

i n di n gs: In t h e i n sta n t case, defen da n tcl ai m s t h at c ou n selfai l ed to ad vi se h i m t h at a pl ea agreem en t t o sec on d d egree ki dn ap pi n g w as of fered by t he St at e . A r e vi e w o f t he de fe nda nt ’ s r e c o r ds i ndi c at e d t hathe kn ow i n gl y en t ered a pl ea of n ot gu i l t y. F u rt h er, defenda n tha s not m ethi s burd en i n provi n g t h at he i n vol u n t ari l y en t ered a pl ea of not gu i l t y. Fu rt h er, defen da n tcl ai m [ si c] rel ate t o st rat egi c c h oi ces m ad e b y hi s c o u n sela t t he t i m e o f t he de fe nda nt ’ s t r i al
. The de fe nda nt ’ s c l ai m s a r e e s s e nt i al l y w i t h hi s c o uns e l ’ s de c i s i o ns regardi n g defenda n t ’ s pl ea at t ri al
. T h i s i s c on si dered tri alt act i csNo. 07- 30772

6 fo rp u r p o s e s o f e v a lu a tin gth e p e r fo r m a n c e o f d e fe n d a n t’s co u n s e l. Th us, def

endant ’ s c l ai m m ustfai lbe c ause hi s c ounse l ’ s ac t i on at t ri alw as con si dered t ri altact i cs an d u n der t h e St r i c kland t e s t , t he d efen d a n t ha s fa i l ed to m ee t t h e tw o-pr on g test. Th e f ede r aldi st r i c tc our ti nt er pre t ed t he s t at e c our tdec i si on as an i m pl i ed, unart i c ul at ed f i ndi ng t hata pl ea of ferof t w ent y t o t hi r t y ye ar s had b e e n ma d e . T h e d i s t r i c tc o u r tr e a s o n e dt h a tt h e s t a t e j u d g e wa s “ fa c e dwi t h t wo i n consi st en tversi on s of t h e pl ea dis cussi on s, ” an d that t h e st ate c ou rtchose R egan’ s ver si on. The nam ed “i nco nsi st entve r si ons ” w er e ( 1 ) M u rra y’ s deni al t hathe t o l d R e ga n t hatW i l lw o ul d r e f us e a ny pa r t i c ul arnum be ro f y e ar s , a nd ( 2) R egan’ s t es t i m ony t hatM urr ay t ol d hi m hi s c l i ent w oul d nott ake m or e t han t h ree t o f

ive y e ar s . Thi s i s t he o nl y i nc o ns i s t e nc y i n e vi de nt i ar y he ar i ng te s tim o n y . A ft e rd e s c r ib in gth e e v id e n c e p r e s e n t e da n dr e c o u n t in gth e s t a t e c o u r t ’s fact u alf

i n di n gs, t h e federaldi st ri ctcourtconcl u d e d tha t“ [t ] h e t ri alcourt ap pa rentl y m ad e t h e fact u alf i n di n g t h at a pl ea of

fer of 20 to 30 years w as i n fact t e nde r e d, b utr e buf

fe d b y de fe ns e c o uns e la nd wi t ho utb e i ng c o nve ye d t o t he p e tit io n e r .” T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t c o n tin u e d : [h ] ad t h e t ri al j u dg e accepted defense coun sel ’ s versi on , t h at no pl ea o f fe rwa s e v e n mad e , t h a two u l dh a v e e n d e d t he d i s c u s s i o n . By c o u c h in gh is d e c is io n in te r m s o f d e fe n s e co u n s e l’ s “s tr a te g ic c hoi c es ” and “ t r i al t ac t i c s” he nec es sa r i l y f ound t hata pl ea of

ferw as i n fac tm ade, c ons i st entw i t h t he pr os ec ut or’ s test i m ony, butw as n otconveyed du e t o th e “st rat egi c c h oi ces” an d “t ri alt act i cs” of d e fe n s e co u n s e l. T h e d i stri ct cou rt ru l ed tha t fa i l i n g t o con ve y t h e plea o ff er to W i l lam ou n tedto i nef fec t ive as si st ance of cou n sel t hatpr ej udi c ed W i l lbe c ause he w oul d have
ac c ept ed t he pl ea of

ferbas ed o n hi s t es t i m ony att he e vi dent i ar y hear i ng.No. 07- 30772

7 I I . DI S CU S S I ON A . St andard of

R evi ew Thi s c o ur tr e vi ew s the di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s f i ndi ngs o f

fac tf o rc l e are r r o ra nd i t s l egal concl u si on s de no vo , “ap p l yin g t h e sam e st a n d a rd of rev i ew to th e sta te
cou rt’ s d ecisi on as th e d i stri ct cou rt. ” Se eG o m e zv . Q uar t e r m an , 529 F. 3d 322, 3 2 7 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) (q u o ta tio n s o m itt e d ), c e r t
. de ni e d 1 2 9 S
. C t. 62 8 ( 2 0 0 8 ). “A fac t ualf

i ndi ng i s notc l ear l y e r r oneo us if i t i s pl ausibl e i n l i ght of t he r ec or d as
a w h ole. ” Un i t ed Stat es v. L on d on , 5 68 F. 3d5 53 , 5 62 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 9) ( quo t at i o ns o m itted ). In a h abea s proceedi n g, w e w i l l“‘ n otg ran trel i ef on an y cl ai m adj u di cat ed on t he m e r i t s b y a s t a t e c o ur t un l e s s t he s t a t e d e c i s i o n was c o nt r a r y t o, oran unr e as o nab l e a pp li c a t i o no f, c l e a r ly e s t ab l i s he d f e de r all aw as de t e r m i ne d b y t he S u p r e m e C o u r t, o rif th e s ta te co u r t’s d e te r m in a tio n o f fa c ts w a s u n r e a s o n a b le in lig h to f t h e e v id e n c e .” ’ I d. ( quot i ng T

h o mp so n v. Ca in , 1 6 1 F
. 3 d8 0 2 , 80 5 ( 5 th C i r. 199 8) (ci t i n g 28 U
. S
. C
. § 2254 ( d)) )
. Th e “ st ate c ou rt ’ s fact u alf i n di n gs are p r e s u m e dto b e co r r e c t u n le s s co n tr a v e n e db ycle a ra n dco n v in c in ge v id e n c e .” Mo o dy v . Q uar t e r m an , 4 7 6 F .3 d2 6 0 , 2 6 7 (5 th C i r . 2 0 0 7 ) (c itin g2 8 U .S .C . § 225 4( e) ( 1) )
. Th i s presum pti on of cor rect n ess ap pl i es al so t o un art i cul ated fin d in g s n e c e s s a r yto th e s ta te co u r t’s co n c lu s io n s o f m ix e dla w a n dfa c t. V aldez
v . Co ck re ll , 2 7 4 F .3 d9 4 1 , 9 4 8 n .1 1 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). B . I nef

f ec t i ve Ass i s t ance o f C oun s el I n S t ri cklan dv. W

ash i ngt on , 466 U
. S
. 668 ( 198 4) , t h e Su prem e C ou rtset fo r th a tw o -p r o n gte s t fo re v a lu a tin gcla im s o f in e ffe c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f c o u n s e l. T h e p eti ti on er m u st fi rst d em on strate th a t cou n sel’ s p erform a n ce w a s d efi ci en t,
a n dth e n p r o v e th a t t h e d e fic ie n t p e r fo r m a n c e p r eju d ic e dh is d e fe n s e . I d. at687.No. 07- 30772

8 The de f i c i e nc y m us tb e “ s o s e r i o us t hatc o uns e lw as no tf unc t i o ni ng as t he

‘ cou n sel’gu a ra n teed the de fen d a n t bythe S ix th A m en d m en t. ” I d. To sh ow p reju d i ce, th e p eti ti on er m u st sh ow “t h a t t h ere i s a re a son a b l e p rob a b i l i ty th a t, butf orc ounse l ’ s unp r of

es si onaler r or s, t he r es ul tof t he pr oc ee di ng w oul d have b ee n dif feren t. ” I

d. at694. W e h a v e h e ldth a t “ fa ilin gto in fo r m th e d e fe n d a n t o f a p l e a o ffe rco u ld
a m ou n t t o ine ff

ective a ssistan ce of cou n sel. ” T eag u e v . S co tt , 60 F. 3d 1167, 1171 ( 5t h Ci r . 1 99 7)
. “ I n de t e r m i ni ng w he t he ro rno tt o pl e adg ui l t y, t he de fe nda nt shou l d be m ad e aw are of the rel evan tci rcum st an ces an d l i kely c on sequ en ces so th a t he can m a k e a n i n tel l i ge n t cho i ce.” I d. at 11 7 0
. W e h a ve n ot p rev i ou s ly
ru l ed tha t fa i l u re to i n form a d efen d a n t of plea d i scu ssion s cou l dam ou n t t o in e ffe c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f c o u n s e l. 1 . The S t at e Cour t ’ s U nar t i c ul at e d Fi ndi ng The di s t r i c tc o ur te r r e d b y f i ndi n g t hatt he s t at e c o ur ti m pl i c i t l y f o und t hatR egan had m ade apl ea of fer. It i s tr ue t hati f t he s t at e c our tm akes an unar t i c ul at e d f

i ndi ng, t he n t he di s t r i c tc o ur tm us ta c c e ptt he f i ndi ng as t r ue u nl e s s i tde t e r m i ne s t hatt he f i ndi ng w as unr e as o nab l e o rc l e ar l y e r roneou s, R i c har ds v . Q uar t e r m an , 566 F. 3d 553, 563–64 ( 5t h C i r . 2009) , butt he f ede r al
cou rts n ee dn ot d efer i f th ere w a s n o su c h fi n d i n g. I n terp reta ti on of th e sta te court’ s r u l i n g i s a m att er of l aw t h at t h i s c ou rtrevi ew s de no vo . S ee G om ez , 529 F .3 da t 3 2 7
. Th e di st r i c tc our t ’ s c onc l usi on w as based on the st at e co urt ’ s f i ndi ng t hat W ill’ s in e ffe c tiv e a s s is ta n c e c la im “r e la te [s ] to s tr a te g ic ch o ic e s m a d e b yh is
c o u n s e l a t t h e tim e o f [W ill’ s ] tr ia l. [W ill’ s ] c la im s a r e e s s e n t i a llyw ith h is
coun sel ’ s deci si on rega rdi n g [W i l l ’ s] p l ea at tr i al
. T h i s i s con si dered t ri alt act i csNo. 07- 30772

9 f orpurpo se s of

ev al uat i ng t he per f or m ance of

[W i l l ’ s] c ounse l
. ” Al t hough
c o nf us i ng, t hi s l ang uag e do e s no t l e ad us t o c o nc l ude t hatt he s t at e c o ur tf o und
a pl ea of

fer had bee n m ade. I t i s m or e r eas onabl e t o c onc l ude t ha t t h e sta te
cou rt referred on l y to p l ea d i scu ssion s i n stea dof a bo n a f i d e p l ea off

er. T h e sta te court w ou l d h ave been l ess l i kely t o so easi l y di spose of W i l l ’ s c l ai m f

or i n ef fect ive assi st an ce of

coun seli f

i tha d f

ou n d a p l ea of

fer had act u al l y been
m ad e . Bec aus e t he s t at e c o ur t ’ s ul t i m at e co nc l us i o n di d notre qui r e i tt o f i nd a pl ea of fer, w e concl u de that t h e s ta te cou rtdi d n otf i n d R egan m ad e an y pl ea of fert o M urr ay. W e m ustr eve r se t he di st r i c tc our t ’ s r ul i ng. 2. E vi dence Support i ng P l ea O f f er I n l i ghto f

o urhol di ng t hatt he st at e co ur tdi d notf i nd t hatR e ga n m ad e a pl e a o f

fe r , w e as k w he t he r t he di s t r i c t c o ur t c o m m i t t e d c l e are r r o rb y f i ndi ng th a t a plea off

er h a dbe en m a d e. If the distri ct cou rt’ s f i n d i n g w a s cl ea rly
e r r o n e o u s , w e n e e dn o t r e m a n dfo rth e d is tr ic t c o u r t t o m a k e fa c tu a l fin d in g s in lig h t o f o u rd e c is io n . Arev i ew of th e reco rd rev ea l s n o ev i d en ce th a t R eg a n m a d e a plea off er to M u rra y. The t es t i m ony att he e vi dent i ar y hear i ng i s c ons i st entw i th pre l i m i nary pl ea negot i at i ons : t hatR egan t ol d M urr ay t hatt he fam i l y had exp ress ed i n t erest in a t w en t y t o t h i rt y year dea l , an d that M u rray’ s r espon se led R e g a n to b e li e v e th a t th e yw e re too fara p a rt in te r m s o f ye a rs to ju stify
c o n t i n u e dn e g o tia tio n s . T h e o n lyin c o n s is te n c ys u p p o r te db yth e e v id e n c e is
w h et h er M u rray t ol d R egan hi s c l i en tw ou l d onl y pl ea to t h ree t o f ive years. T h is d is p u te h a s n o b e a r in go n w h e th e rR e g a n m a d e a n o ffe rto M u r r a y . T h e onl y pa rt i es present at t h e pl ea n egoti ati on s t est i f i ed that nei t h er R egan nor an yon e el se att h e D
. A
. ’ s O f f i ce m ad e a p lea o ffer
. O n cr oss-No. 07- 30772

The minute entry

at the pre -trial hearingsuggestingthat a plea offer was made can not b e 2 c on s i dere d,be c aus eitmerely mi s state swhatwassai d atthehe aring. 10 exam i n ati on at t h e evi den t i ary h eari n g, coun selasked R egan “ di d the S t ate of L o u is ia n a e v e ro f

fe rM r . W ill a p le a a g r e e m e n t? ” R e g a n re s p o n d e d“N o .” M u rray w rot e a l et t er post
- t ri alt h at a pl ea of fer had n ot been m ad e, an d st ated at the pre- t ri alcon ference “[ w ] e w ere i n t ou ch w i t h t h e D i st ri ctA t t orney’ s O f f i ce up un t i lTh urs day t o de t er m i ne w het heror notthi s m at t ercoul d be r es olved by
a pl e a. I tw as de t e r m i ne d t hati tc o ul d no tb e . ” M ur r aya l s o t e s t i f i e d a tt he 2
e v id e n tia r yh e a r in gth a t t h e D .A .’ s O ffic e n e v e rm a d e ap le a o ffe r . Bec aus e M ur r ay an d Reg an w e r e t he o nl y t w o pe o pl e pr e s e nta nd
c o m p e te n t t o te s tifya s to th e s u p p o s e dp le a o ffe r , w e n e e dn o t lo o k b e y o n dth e ir testi m on y. B oth de n y t h a t a p l ea offer w a s ev er m a d e, a n dthe re is no rea son to dou bt t h e credibi l i t y of t h ei r t est i m on y. W e t h eref ore concl u de th a t it is not pl au sibl e, i n l i gh tof

t h e record a s a w h ol e, t o f i n d that R egan m ad e a pl ea of fer to M u r r a y . S ee L on d on , 5 6 8 F .3 da t 5 6 1
. Afin d in go th e r w is e is cle a r ly
erroneou s. 3 . Pl e a Di s c us s i ons Ato r ala r gum e nt , W i l l ’ s c o uns e la r gue d t h at the fai l ur e t o di s c l o s e t he
s u b s ta n c e o f p le a n e g o tia tio n s a m o u n ts to in e ffe c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f c o u n s e l. W ill d i dn ot m a k e th i s con ten ti on i n h i s br i ef, an don l y a rg u ed tha t a fa i l u re to i n f orm t h e cl i en tof

an exi st i n g pl ea of

fer am ou n t s to in ef

fect ive assi st an ce of
cou n sel. W i l lalso fai l ed to arg u e b efore th e d i stri ct cou rt t h a t a fa i l u re to
c om m uni c at e t he s ubst ance of pl ea negot i at i ons am ount ed t o i nef fec t ive assi st an ce of

coun sel
. I f

not r ai sed bef

ore t h e di st rict co u rt, argu m en t s are w a iv e da n dc a n n o t b e r a is e do n a p p e a l. S e e L eMa ir e v . L a . D e p ’ t of Tr a n s

p . &No. 07- 30772

11 D e v. , 480 F. 3d 383, 388 ( 5t h C i r . 2007) (c i t i ng Tex . Co m m e r c i a lEn e rg y v . TX U E n ergy, I

n c. , 413 F
. 3d 503 , 510 ( 5th C i r. 200 5) )
. “ H ow ever, an argu m en ti s not
w aived on appea li f

t he ar gum enton t he i ssu e b efore t he di st r i c tc our tw as su ff i ci en t to p erm i t th e dist ri ct cou rt to ru l e on i t. ” In reL i l j eberg E n t ers . , I

n c. , 3 0 4 F .3 d4 1 0 , 4 2 8 n .2 9 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). In t h i s c ase W i l lnev er a rg u e d to the dis t ri ctcourtt h at fai l i n g t o i n f orm a def endant of t he subs t ance of pl ea negot i at i ons r i se s t o t he l eve lof i nef fec t ive as si st ance of

c ounse land t her e w as no ar gum entr egar di ng w het herW i l lw as pr ej udi c e d byt he fai l ur e t o co nve y pl e a ne go t i at i o ns . Ther e f o r e , w e do r e ac h t he
m eri t s o f W il l’ s con t en t i on t h at M u rray’ s fai l u re t o i n f orm hi m of

pl ea d is c u s s io n s a m o u n te dto in e ffe c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f c o u n s e l. I I I . C ONC L US I ON B eca u se w e ha ve determ i n ed that t h ere w as no i n ef fect ive assi st an ce of
cou n sel un d er th e fi rst St r i c kland p r o n g , w e n e e d n o t a s k w h e t h e r t h e c o u n s e l’s
a c tio n s ca u s e dth e d e fe n d a n t p r ej u d ic e . A c c o r d in g ly , th e ju d g m e n t is R E V E R S E D an d R E N D E R E D f or t h e State.