THI RD DI VI SI ON

ELLI NGTON, P. J.

, A NDREWS and RI CKM A N, JJ.

N O T IC E : M otions for r e c ons i de r a tion m us t be

ph y sic a l ly r e ce iv ed i n our c le r k ’s offic e w ithin te n

da y s of the da te of de c is ion to be de e m ed tim e ly file d.

http://w w w .ga a ppe a l s .us /r ule s

June 14, 2017



# I n th e Co u r t o f

A p p eals o f

G eo r g ia

A1 7 A0 43 7 . W A LKER v

. THE STATE.

A N D R E W S , J u d g e.

Hard en W al k er was fo u n d g u i lt y b y a ju ry o f rap e an d fal s e i m p ri s o nm en t an d

was sen ten ced t o l i f

e i m p r i s o n m en t pl u s fi v e y ears

. W al k er ap p eal s cl ai m i n g t h e

ev i d en ce o f v en u e was in s uffi ci en t an d t hat t h e t ri al co u rt erred b y den y i n g h i s m o t i o n

fo r a n ew t ri al o n t h e b as i s o f i n effect i v e as s i s t an ce of co u n s el

. Fo r t h e fo l l o wi n g

reas on s

, t h e ju d g m en t o f co n v i ct i o n i s affi rm ed

, t h e sen t en ce i s affi rm ed o n co n d i t i o n,

an d t h e cas e i s rem an d ed wi t h d i rect i o n s

.

1

. W al ker’ s o n l y ch al l en ge t o t h e s u ffi ci en cy o f t h e ev i d en ce co n cern s wh et h er

t h e St at e carri ed it s b urd en t o p ro d u ce ev i d en ce es t ab l i s hi n g v en u e

– t h at th e ch arg ed

o ffen s es were co m

m i t ted i n Fu l t o n Co u n ty , as al l eg ed i n t he i nd i ct m en t

.In cri m i n al cas es

, v en u e (t h e co u n t y w h ere th e ch arg ed cri m e w as co m m i t t ed )

i s an es s en t i al el em en t wh i ch m u s t b e p ro v ed b ey o n d a reas o nab l e d o ub t

. Ga. Co ns t

.

1 9 8 3

, Art VI, Sec. II, Par. V I; Bel l v. S t a t e

, 2 8 4 Ga. 7 9 0

, 7 9 2 (6 7 1 SE2 d 8 15 ) (2 0 0 9 ).

As wi t h an y el em en t o f a ch arg ed cri m e, t h e St at e m ay u s e d i r ect o r ci rcu m s t an t i al

ev i d en ce t o p ro v e v en u e. Id . at 7 9 3.

T h e St at e pres en ted t h e fo l lo wi n g ev id en ce t o pro v e t h e ch arg ed cri m e s

.

W al k er was i n d i ct ed i n 2 0 1 0 o n ch arg es t h at i n J u l y o f 1 9 9 0 h e c o m m i t t ed t h e

o ffen s es o f rap e an d fal se i m p ri s o n m en t ag ai n s t t he v i ct i m . A s h o rt d i s tan ce fro m a

n i g h t cl u b l o cat ed i n M i d t o wn A t l an t a, t he v i ct i m accep t ed a ri d e fro m t wo m en wh o,

ag ai n s t t h e v i ct i m ’ s w i l l, d ro v e t h e v i ct i m t o a n earb y fi el d wh ere b o t h m en

t h reat en ed t o k i l l t h e v ict i m ’ s fam i l y an d t h en

, fo rci bl y an d ag ai n s t t h e v i ct i m ’ s wi l l

,

h ad s ex wi t h t h e v i ct i m i n t h e car

. Aft er t h e m en co u l d no t s tart t h e car, t h e v i ct i m

es cap ed an d ran s cream in g t o a n earb y h o u s e l o cat ed i n t h e 60 0 b l o c k o f Vern o n

Av en u e i n Fu l t on Co u n t y w h e r e t he o ccu p an t cal l ed p o li ce. W h en Ci t y o f At l an t a

p o l i ce arri v ed at t h e h o u s e, t h ey i m m ed i at el y t o o k t h e v ict i m to Grad y Ho s p i t al wh ere

a sex ual as s au l t ex am was perfo rm ed

, DNA s am pl es were co l l ect ed fro m th e v i ct i m ’ s

v ag in a, an d a rap e k i t co nt ai n i ng t h e s am p l es was s en t t o t h e GBI cri m e l ab

. Becau s e

i t was d ark

, t h e v i ct i m n ev er g ot a go o d lo o k at th e m en s o s h e was u nab l e t o i d en t i fy

2t h e rap i s ts to p o l i ce. W i t ho u t a s u s p ect wh o s e DNA pro fi le co u l d b e co m p ared t o t h e

DNA s am

p l es fro m t he vi ct i m ’ s v ag i n a, th e ca s e r e m a i n ed co l d fo r ab o u t 2 0 y ears

.

In 2 0 1 0

, p u rs u an t t o a req ues t by t h e Ci t y o f At l an ta p ol i ce, t h e cri m e l ab t es t ed t h e

s a m p l e s f ro m t h e v i ct i m ’ s rap e k i t

, es t ab l is h ed t h at m al e DNA was i n t h e s am p l es

,

an d g e n e r a t ed a p ro fi l e o f t h e m al e DNA wh i ch m at ch ed k n own D NA p ro fi l es o f

W al k er co n t ai n ed i n an ex i s t i n g DNA d at ab as e an d i n b u ccal s wab s o b t ai n ed fro m

W al k er b y s earch warran t

. T h e Ci t y o f At lan t a p ol i ce o ffi cer as s i g n ed t o i n v es t i g at e

t h e cas e i n 1 9 90 t e s t i f

i e d t h at t he ni g h t cl u b an d t h e h o u s e t h e v i ct i m ran to

i m m ed i at el y aft er t h e rap e were l o cat ed i n Fu lt o n Co u n t y a n d t h a t t h e i n ci d en t

o ccu rred i n Fu l t on Co u n t y

.

Th e ev i d en ce was s u ffi ci en t fo r t h e ju ry t o fi nd b ey o n d a reas o n ab l e d o u b t t h at

W al k er was g u i l t y o f t he ch arg ed o ffen s es o f rap e an d fal s e i m p ri s on m en t

. OCGA § §

1 6 -6 -1 (a) (1 ); 1 6 -5 -4 1 (a). Th e d i rect an d ci rcu m s t an t ial ev id en ce w as al so su ffi ci en t

fo r th e ju ry t o f

i n d b ey o n d a reas o n ab le do u b t t h at t h e ch arg ed offen s es were

co m m i t t ed i n Fu l t o n Co u nt y , as al l eg ed i n t h e i n d ict m en t

.

2

. W al k er co n t en d s o n t wo gro u n d s t h at h is t ri al co u n sel was i n effect i v e, an d

t h at t h e t ri al co u rt erred b y d en y i n g h i s m o t i o n fo r a n ew t ri al o n t h es e g ro u n d s

.

3T o p rev ai l on a cl ai m o f i n effect i v e as s is tan ce, [W al k er] m u s t

p ro v e b ot h t h at th e p erfo rm an ce o f h i s lawy er was defi ci en t an d t h at he

was p reju d i ced b y t h is d efi ci en t p erfo rm an ce. St r i ckl a n d v. W as h i ng t o n

, 4 6 6 U.S. 66 8

, 6 8 7 (III) (1 0 4 SCt 2 0 5 2, 8 0 LE2 d 6 7 4 ) (1 98 4 ). To s h o w

t h at t h e p erfo rm an ce o f h i s l awy er was d efi ci en t

, [W al k er] m u s t p ro ve

t h at s h e p erfo rm ed h er d u t i es at t ri al i n an o b ject i v el y un reas o nab l e way

,

co n s i d eri ng al l th e ci rcu m s t an ces

, an d i n t h e l i g h t o f p rev ai l i n g

p ro fes s io n al n o rm s

. Id

. at 6 8 7

– 68 8 (III)(A). See al s o Ki m mel ma n v.

Mo r ri s o n

, 4 77 U.S. 3 6 5

, 3 8 1 (II ) ( C ) (1 0 6 SCt 2 5 7 4

, 9 1 LE2 d 3 0 5 )

(1 9 8 6 ). An d t o s h o w t h at h e w as preju d iced b y t h e p erfo rm an ce o f h i s

l awy er, [W al k er] m

u s t p ro ve “ a reas on ab le p ro b ab i l it y t h at

, b u t fo r

co u n s el ’ s u n p ro fes s i o n al erro rs

, t h e res u l t o f t h e p ro ceed i n g wo u l d h av e

b een d i f f eren t

. A reas o n ab l e p ro b ab i l i t y i s a p ro b ab i l i t y s u ffi ci en t t o

u n d erm in e co n fi d en ce i n t h e o u t c o m e.” S t r i ckl a n d

, 4 6 6 U.S. at

6 9 4 (III)(B). See al s o W

i l l i a ms v. T

a y l o r

, 5 2 9 U .S. 3 6 2, 3 9 1 (III) (1 2 0

SCt 1 4 9 5

, 1 4 6 LE2 d 3 8 9 ) (2 0 0 0 ). Th i s bu rd en

, t h o u g h n ot im po s si bl e

t o carry , i s a h eav y

o n e. See Ki mmel ma n , 4 7 7 U.S. at 3 82 (II)(C).

A r n o l d v. S t a t e

, 2 9 2 Ga. 2 68

, 2 6 9 -2 70 (7 3 7 SE2 d 9 8 ) (2 0 1 3 ). In co n s i d eri n g a n

i n effect i v e as s i s t an ce cl ai m o n ap p eal

, “ [w] e accep t th e t ri al co u rt ’ s fact ual fi n d i ng s

an d cred i b i l i t y d et erm i n at i o n s un l es s cl earl y erro n eo u s

, b u t we i n d ep en d en t l y ap p l y

t h e l eg al p ri n ci p l es t o t h e fact s

. ” Leo n a r d v. S t a t e

, 2 9 2 Ga. 2 1 4

, 2 1 7 (7 35 SE2 d 7 6 7 )

(2 0 1 2) (ci t at i o n an d p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed )

In t h e fi rs t g ro u n d

, W al k er co n ten d s t h at t ri a l c o u n s e l was i n effect i v e fo r

p u rs u i n g a d efen s e t h at t h e cri m e l ab ’ s DNA t es t res ul t s w ere fau lt y wh en d i s co v ery

e v i d e n ce s ho wed o th erwi se. At t h e h eari n g o n W al k er’ s n ew t ri al m o ti o n

, h i s tri al

co u ns el t es t i fi ed t h at

, p ri o r t o t ri al

, sh e s u b p o en aed al l o f th e cri m e l ab t es t i n g d at a

4o n t h e DNA o b tai n ed fro m t h e v i c t i m ’s vag in a aft er t h e rap e, h i red a DNA ex p ert

fro m G eo rg i a Tech t o rev i ew t h e DNA t es ti n g

, a n d t h e e x p ert rev i ewed t h e t es t i n g

d at a an d t o l d h er th at t h e cri m e l ab t es t i n g was i n a d eq uat e an d “ was n ’ t en o u g h to

p ro v e t hat i t was M r. W al k er’ s DNA.” Co u ns el r e l i e d o n t h i s ex p ert o p i n i o n to

fo rm u l at e a d efen s e fo r t h e t ri al

. Co u n sel tes t ifi ed th at

, aft er t h e St at e p res en t ed

wi t n es s es at tri al fro m t h e cri m e l ab es t ab l i s h i ng t h e cri m e l ab t es t i n g p ro ced u res

, s h e

s p o k e t o h er ex p ert wi t n es s d u ri n g a reces s o f t h e t ri al

, an d t h e ex p ert rev i ewed t h e

t e s t i n g d a t a ag ai n an d t o l d h er t h at h e h ad m ad e a m i s t ak e in hi s i ni t ial rev i ew an d

t h at t h e cri m e l ab DNA t es t i ng was accu rat e. Acco rd i n g t o t ri al co u ns el

, i f s h e h ad

cal l ed t h e ex p ert as a wi t n es s at t ri al

, t h e ex p ert wo u l d h av e co n fi rm ed t he cri m e l ab

t es t i n g

, s o s h e m ad e a s t rat eg i c d eci s i on n o t t o cal l h i m

. W e fi n d n o erro r i n t h e t ri al

co u rt ’ s co n cl u si o n t h at W al k er f a i l e d t o s h o w t h at t ri al co u ns el ’ s p erfo rm an ce was

d efi ci en t. Un d er t he ci rcu m s t an ces

, co u n s el ’ s d eci s i o n no t to cal l t h e ex p ert wi t n es s

at t r i a l was a reas o n ab le s t rat eg i c d eci s io n

. M o reo ver “ [a] d efen d an t i s n ot

co n st i t u t io n al l y en t i t l ed t o an y cert ai n l ev el o f effect i v e as si s t an ce fro m ex p ert s t h at

are reas o nab l y s el ect ed b y t ri al co u n sel .” Smi t h v. S t a t e

, 2 83 Ga. 2 3 7

, 2 39 (6 5 7 SE2 d

5 2 3 ) (2 0 0 8 ) (ci t at i o n an d p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed ). W al k er d o es n o t cl ai m t hat th e ex p ert

was n o t reas on ab l y sel ect ed b y t ri al co u ns el

, an d we fi n d u n d er t h e ci rcu m s t an ces t h at

5co u ns el ’ s rel i an ce o n t h e ex p ert ’ s erro n eo u s i n i t i a l o p i n i o n was no t d efi ci en t

p erfo rm an ce. Th e t ri al co u rt d id n o t err b y d en y i n g W al k er’ s m o t i o n fo r a n ew t ri al

o n t h i s g ro u n d

. St r ickl a n d , s u p ra.

I n t h e s eco n d g ro u nd

, W al k er co n t en d s t h at t ri al co u ns el was in effect i v e fo r

fai l i n g t o ad eq u at el y ad v i s e h i m reg ard in g a pre-t ri al p l ea o ffer fro m t h e St at e. Th e

t wo p art t es t u n d e r S t r i ckl an d

, s up ra, al s o ap p l i es t o W al k er’ s al l eg at i o n s o f

i n effect i v e as s i s t a n c e d uri n g pl ea n eg o t i at i o ns

. Al exa n d er v. S t a te

, 2 9 7 Ga. 5 9

, 6 3

(7 7 2 SE2 d 6 5 5 ) (2 0 15 ). Du ri ng p re-t ri al p l ea neg o t ia t i o n s

, t h e St at e o ffered to

reco m m en d t o th e t ri al co u rt t h at W al k er s erv e 20 y ears i n pri s on i n ex ch an g e fo r h i s

g u i l t y pl ea t o th e ch arg ed o ffen s es o f rap e an d fal s e i m p ri s o n m en t

. It i s u n d i s p u t ed

t h at

, wh en t h e St at e m ad e t he p l ea o ffer, bo t h t h e p ro s ecu t o r an d W al k er’ s t ri al

co u ns el erro neo u sl y

b el i ev ed t hat 2 0 y ears w as t h e m ax im um s en t en ce t h at W al k er

co u ld recei v e o n t h e rap e ch arg e, wh en

, i n fact

, h e co u l d re c e i v e a l i f e sen t en ce.

Bas ed o n co u n s el ’ s erro n eo us ad v i ce t h at 2 0 y ears was t h e m ax i m u m rap e sen t en ce,

W al k er reject ed t he p l ea o ffer, wen t t o t ri al

, was co n vi ct ed o n b o t h ch arg es

, an d

recei v ed a s en t en ce o f l i fe i m p ri s o n m en t fo r rap e p lu s fi v e y ears fo r fal s e

i m p ri s o n m en t

. W al k er t es t i fi ed at t h e heari ng o n t h e n ew t ri al m o t i on t h at t r i al

co u ns el t o l d h i m

ab o ut t h e St at e’ s 2 0 y ear p l ea o ffer an d t h at “ m o re t h an l i k el y ” h e

6wo u l d h av e tak en t h e pl ea o ffer i f t ri al co u n sel h ad ad vi s ed h i m t hat t h e m ax i m u m

s e n t e n ce fo r rap e was l i fe i m pri s o n m en t

. Al t h o u gh W al k er tes t ifi ed t h at h e d i d n o t

le arn ab o ut t h e po s s i b i l it y o f l ife i m p ri s o n m en t u n t i l sen t en ci n g

, t ri al co u n s el t es t ifie d

t h at

, ju s t p ri o r t o o p en in g s t at e m e n ts

, t h e p ro s ecu t o r t o l d h er t h at t h e m ax i m u m

s en t en ce fo r t h e rap e ch arg e w as l i fe i m p ri so n m en t an d th at W al k er wa s al s o m ad e

aware at t h at t i m e t h at t h e m ax i m u m s en t en ce was l i fe.

“ If a p l ea b arg ai n h as b een o f f e r e d

, a d efen d an t h as t he ri g ht to effect i v e

as s i s tan ce o f co u n s el i n co n s i deri n g wh et h er t o accep t i t

. ” La fl er v. Co o

per

, 5 6 6 U.S.

1 5 6

, 1 6 8 ( 1 3 2 SCt 1 3 7 6

, 1 82 LE2 d 3 98 ) (2 0 1 2 ). Becau s e t ri al co u n s el ’ s erro n eo u s

ad v ice t hat 2 0 y ears was th e m ax i m u m rap e s en t en ce was cl earl y d efi ci en t

p erfo rm an ce u n der t h e fi rs t S t r i ckl a n d p ro n g

, t h e is su e i s w h et her W al k er p ro v ed

u n d er t h e s eco n d S t r i ckl a nd p ro n g t h at co u n s el ’ s d efi ci en t p erfo rm an ce preju d i ced

t h e d efen s e.

W h ere co un s el ’ s d efi ci en t ad v i ce h as l ed a d efen dan t t o reject a p l ea o ffer an d

s t an d t ri al , t o es t ab li s h p reju d i ce u n d er t h e s eco n d S t r i ckl a n d p ro n g

,

a d efen d a n t m

u s t s h o w t h at b u t fo r t h e i n effect i v e ad v ice o f co u n s el

t h ere i s a reas o n a b l e p ro b ab il i ty t h at t h e p lea o ffer wo ul d h av e b een

p res en t ed t o t h e co u rt (i .e., t h at t h e d efen dan t wo u l d hav e accep t ed th e

p l ea an d t he p ro s ecu t i o n wo u l d n o t h av e wi t h d rawn i t i n li g h t o f

inte r ve ning ci rcu m s t an ces ), t h at t h e co u rt wo u l d hav e accep t ed i t s t erm s,

7an d t h at t h e co n v i ct i o n o r sen t en ce, o r b o t h

, u n d e r t h e offer’ s t erm s

wo u ld h av e b een l es s sev ere t h an u n d er t h e j u d gm en t an d sen t en ce t hat

i n fact were i m

p o s ed

.

La f l er

, 5 6 6 U.S. at 1 64

. In ad d res s i n g t he p reju d i ce p ro n g

, t he t ri al co u rt ru l ed t h at

W al k er l earn ed d u ri n g t h e t ri al t h at t h e m ax i m u m s en t e n c e fo r rap e was l i fe rat h er

t h an 2 0 y ears

, t h at “ b efo re an d d u ri n g t ri al

, [W al ker] rep eat ed l y reject ed a p l ea o ffer

o f t wen ty y ears t o s erv e,” an d t h at “ n o t h i ng i n th e reco rd s u g g e s t s t h at [W al k er]

wo u l d hav e act ed an y d i fferen tl y h ad th e p ro p er s en t en ce gu i d el i n es been co n v ey ed

t o h i m p ri o r t o t ri al .” Es s en t ial ly , t h e t ri al co u rt ru l ed t h at W al k er fai l ed t o s h o w h e

was p reju d i ced b y co u ns el ’ s d efi ci en t ad v i ce b ecau se (wi t h k n o wl ed g e t h at l i fe was

t h e m ax im

u m s en t en ce) h e rep eat ed ly reject ed t h e St at e’ s 20 y ear pl ea o ffer. W e fi n d

n o s u p p o r t i n t h e reco rd fo r t h i s ru l i n g

. Ev i d en ce s h o wed t h at W al k er reject ed t h e

St at e’ s p re-t ri al 2 0 y ear p l ea o ff er p ri o r t o l earn i n g t h at l i fe im pri s on m en t was t h e

m ax i m u m s en t en ce fo r rap e. Bu t t h ere i s n o t h i n g i n t h e reco rd s ho wi ng t h at

, aft er t ri al

co u ns el an d W al k er l earn ed fro m t h e p ro s ecu t o r t h at li fe was t h e m ax i m u m sen t en ce,

t h e St at e re-o ffered a 2 0 y ear pl ea d eal o r W al k er reject ed i t. Acco rd i ng l y

, we v acat e

t h e t ri al co urt ’ s ru l i n g o n t h e p reju d i ce p ro n g

.

W e rem an d t h e cas e wi th d i rect i o n s th at th e tri al co u rt reco n s i d er t h e p reju d i ce

p ro n g an d m ak e ap p ro p ri at e fact u al fi n d i n g s an d l eg al co n cl u s i o n s u nd er t h e ab o v e8s t at ed t es t i n La f l er

, s u p ra. Fo r ex am

p l e, as s u m i n g t h at W al k er d em o n s t rat ed a

reas on ab l e p ro b ab i l i t y t h at b u t fo r co u n s el ’ s d efi ci en t ad v i ce h e wo u l d h av e accep t ed

t h e pre-t ri al 2 0 y ear p l ea o ffer, t o es t ab l i s h p reju d i ce, La f ler req u ires ad d i t i o n al

fi nd i ng s t h at t h e p ro s ecu t o r wo u l d n o t h av e wi t h d rawn t h e p l ea o ffer i n l i g h t o f

i n t erv e n i n g ci rcu m s t an ces

, o r t h at

, as s u m i n g th e p l ea o ffer wo u l d h av e b een

p res en t ed t o t h e co u rt

, t h e co u rt wo u ld h av e accep t ed i t s t erm s

. 1 If t h e t ri al co u rt fi nd s

o n rem an d t h at W al k er fai l ed t o s h o w p reju d i ce, t h en t he s en ten ce W al k er recei v ed

at t ri al i s affi rm ed

. If t h e t ri al co u rt co n cl u d es on rem an d t h at t h e preju d ice p ro n g was

es t ab l i s h ed u n d er t h e La

f l er s t an d ard

, t h en t h e co u rt m u s t ad d res s th e p ro p er rem ed y

.

1 T h e t ri a l co u rt i s n o t req u i red t o accep t a p l ea ag reem en t b et ween t h e s t at e

an d t he d efen dan t

. S t a t e v

. G e r ma n y

, 2 4 6 Ga. 4 5 5, 4 5 6 (2 7 1 SE2 d 8 5 1 ) (1 9 8 0 );

Mo r r i s o n v. S t a t e

, 2 7 6 Ga. 82 9

, 8 3 5 n .2 5 (5 83 SE2 d 87 3 ) (2 0 0 3 ). Becau s e “ [a] p l ea

ag reem en t i s

, i n es s en ce, a co n t ract b et ween a d efen dan t an d t h e St at e,” co n t ract ru l es

m ay ap p ly t o d i s p u t es i n vo l v i n g p l ea ag reem en t s

, al t h o ug h

, “ [g ] iv en t h e u n i q u e

n at u re of t h e ag reem en t

, we av o i d s l av i s h ad h eren ce t o ci v i l co n t ract pri n ci p l es .”

Br o wn v

. S t a t e

, 2 61 Ga. Ap p

. 1 1 5

, 1 1 6 -1 1 7 (5 8 2 SE2 d 1 3 ) (2 0 0 3 ); Pu cket t v. U .S.,

5 5 6 U .S. 1 2 9

, 1 3 7 -1 3 9 (1 2 9 SCt 1 4 2 3

, 1 7 3 L E2 d 2 6 6 ) (2 00 9 ). Th e St at e h as t h e

a u th o ri t y t o wi t h d raw i t s co n s en t t o a n eg o t i at ed p l ea an d d em an d a tri al “ w h e n i t

l earn s t h at th e t ri al co u rt d o es n o t i n t en d t o fo ll o w t h e [St at e’ s ] sen t e n c i n g

reco m m en d at i o n.” S t a t e v. Kel l ey

, 2 9 8 Ga. 5 2 7

, 5 2 7 ( 7 8 3 SE2 d 1 2 4) (2 0 1 6 ). Th e

St at e m ay at an y t i m e wi t h d raw an u n accep ted p lea o f f e r

. S t a t e v. Ha r

per

, 2 7 1 Ga.

Ap p

. 7 6 1

, 7 6 2 (6 1 0 SE2 d 6 9 9 ) (2 0 0 5). M o reo v er, a d efen d an t h as n o co n s t i t u t i o n al

ri gh t t o en fo rcem en t o f a p l ea ag reem en t wi t h d rawn b y t he St at e aft er t h e d efen d an t

accep t s t h e p l ea o ffer b ut b efo re t h e d efen d an t perfo rm s u n d e r t h e ag reem en t by

p l ead i n g g u i l t y

. Ma b r

y v. Jo h n s o n

, 4 6 7 U.S. 5 0 4 ( 1 0 4 SCt 2 5 43

, 8 1 L E 2 d 4 3 7 )

(1 9 8 4), d i s ap p ro v ed o n o t h er g ro u n d s b y Pu cket t , 5 5 6 U.S at 1 3 8 n .1

.

9Th e rem ed y wo ul d n o t b e t h e gran t o f a new t ri al ; rat h er, t h e rem ed y m u s t ad dres s t h e

i n j u r y cau s ed b y vi o l at i on o f t h e Si x t h Am en d m en t ri g h t t o effect i ve as s i s t an ce o f

co u ns el du ri n g p re-t ri al p l ea n eg o t i at i o ns “ wh i l e at th e sam e ti m e n ot g ran t a wi n d fal l

t o t h e d efen d an t o r n eed les s l y sq u an d er t h e co n s i d erab l e res o u rces t h e St at e p ro p erl y

i n v es t ed i n t h e cri m i n al p ro s ecu t i o n

. ” L a f l er

, 5 6 6 U.S. at 1 7 0. W h ere a d efen d an t

d ecl i nes a p l ea o ffer as a res u l t o f i n effect i ve as s i s t an ce o f co u ns el an d th en recei v es

a g reat er s en t en ce at t ri al

, t h e t y p i cal cas e i nv o lv es “ ch arg e s t h a t wo ul d h av e b een

ad m i t t ed as p art o f th e p l ea b arg ai n [t h at ] are t he s am e as t h e ch arg es t h e d efen d an t

was co n v i ct ed o f aft er t ri al

. ” Id

. at 1 7 1

. In t hes e ci rcu m s t an ces

, w h i ch were p res en t

i n W al k er’ s cas e, t h e co u rt m ay ex erci s e i t s di s cret i o n t o re-s en t en ce W al k er. “ [T] h e

co u rt m ay ex erci s e d i s cret i o n in d et erm i n i n g wh et h er t h e d efen d an t s h o u ld recei v e

t h e t erm o f im

p ri s o n m en t th e go v ern m en t o ffered i n t h e p l ea, t h e s en t en ce h e recei v ed

at t ri al

, o r s o m et h i n g i n b et ween .” Id

. at 1 7 1

. W al k er h as t h e ri gh t t o ap p eal fro m t h e

t ri al co u rt ’ s d eci s i o n o n t h e p reju d i ce p ro n g an d an y re-s en t en ci n g rem ed y

.

Ju d g men t o f co n vi ct i o n a

f f i r med

, s en t en ce a

f f i r m e d o n co n d i t i o n

, a n d ca s e

r ema n d ed . El l i n g t o n, P. J., a n d

Ri ckma n , J., co n cu r

.

10