Opinion ID: 68623
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Plea Discussions

Text: At oral argument, Will’s counsel argued that the failure to disclose the substance of plea negotiations amounts to ineffective assistance of counsel. Will did not make this contention in his brief, and only argued that a failure to inform the client of an existing plea offer amounts to ineffective assistance of counsel. Will also failed to argue before the district court that a failure to communicate the substance of plea negotiations amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel. If not raised before the district court, arguments are waived and cannot be raised on appeal. See LeMaire v. La. Dep’t of Transp. & 2 The minute entry at the pre-trial hearing suggesting that a plea offer was made can not be considered, because it merely misstates what was said at the hearing. 10 No. 07-30772 Dev., 480 F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir. 2007) (citing Tex. Commercial Energy v. TXU Energy, Inc., 413 F.3d 503, 510 (5th Cir. 2005)). “However, an argument is not waived on appeal if the argument on the issue before the district court was sufficient to permit the district court to rule on it.” In re Liljeberg Enters., Inc., 304 F.3d 410, 428 n.29 (5th Cir. 2002). In this case Will never argued to the district court that failing to inform a defendant of the substance of plea negotiations rises to the level of ineffective assistance of counsel and there was no argument regarding whether Will was prejudiced by the failure to convey plea negotiations. Therefore, we do reach the merits of Will’s contention that Murray’s failure to inform him of plea discussions amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel.