Opinion ID: 3011096
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Denial of Effective Assistance of Counsel

Text: Baker argues that he was denied effective assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment because of his attorney's ignorance of the statutory sentencing amendment during the plea negotiations and because his attorney made various errors during the trial. Baker contends that his attorney's ignorance of the sentencing law caused him to pass up the opportunity to plead guilty and to be sentenced to a 30-year term with a 15-year limit of parole ineligibility.3 Inasmuch as we find that his contentions with respect to his representation at trial are clearly without merit, we confine our discussion to the significance of his attorney's ignorance of the sentencing law. We start our discussion of the Sixth Amendment issues by pointing out that a defendant's right to effective counsel includes the period of his representation during a plea process as well as during a trial. Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 58, 106 S.Ct. 366, 370 (1985). Accordingly, we judge this unusual case by applying the ordinary standards for granting relief when a defendant claims that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Thus, to prevail on his claim Baker must satisfy a two-prong test. First, he must show that his attorney's performance was deficient, that is, that counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the `counsel' guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment . . . . Strickland v. Washington, _________________________________________________________________ 3. In his brief, Baker contended that he is entitled to be sentenced to a 27-year term with an 11-year period of parole ineligibility. This request for relief obviously is dependent upon the reimposition of the sentence the trial court imposed following his conviction at trial and thus is not consistent with his theory that he never should have stood trial. At oral argument, his attorney conceded that his claim should be for the imposition of a 30-year sentence with a 15-year period of parole ineligibility. 7 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064 (1984). Next, he must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. Id. at 694, 104 S.Ct. at 2068. Of course, inasmuch as Baker's contentions regarding trial error are meritless, a different result can mean only that in the absence of his attorney's ignorance of the amendment of the sentencing law, Baker would have pleaded guilty and the court would have sentenced him to a shorter sentence than that it ultimately imposed. We agree with Baker that his trial attorney's error with respect to his ignorance of the sentencing law has satisfied the first prong of the Strickland test. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688, 690, 104 S.Ct. at 2064-65. While we realize that this case is extraordinary in that the state trial judge 4 and the prosecutor also did not know of the change in the law even at the time of Baker's sentencing almost one year after the enactment of the amendment, still we must hold that an attorney who does not know the basic sentence for an offense at the time that his client is contemplating entering a plea is ineffective.5 Baker, however, has not met the second Strickland prong -- a showing that there is a reasonable probability that, but for the error there might have been a different result. The reasonable probability test is not a stringent one. See Nix v. Whiteside, 475 U.S. 157, 175, 106 S.Ct. 988, 998 (1986) (reasonable probability standard less demanding than preponderance standard). We have recognized that [a] reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome. United States v. Day, 969 F.2d 39, 42 (3d Cir. 1992) (quoting Strickland, _________________________________________________________________ 4. In fact three different Superior Court judges were unaware of the change in the law, the judge who accepted Garry's plea of guilty, the judge who sentenced Garry, and the judge who sentenced Baker. 5. Our opinion must not be overread. We recognize that the ascertaining of a sentence for an offense can be a difficult matter, particularly in the federal courts where sentence calculations can be quite complex and can depend on facts not ascertained when the defendant pleads to the offense. Here, however, the sentence required for the offense was straightforward as counsel had only to examine the latest statutory amendments to determine it. 8 466 U.S. at 694, 104 S.Ct. at 2068). But Baker's arguments as to prejudice are totally speculative and do not meet that standard. We have held that an attorney can be ineffective by giving a defendant false information about sentencing, thereby inducing the defendant to plead guilty instead of going to trial. See Meyers v. Gillis, 142 F.3d 664 (3d Cir. 1998). In Meyers we found that a defense attorney was mistaken in informing his client that he would be eligible for parole in a case where the offense to which the defendant pled guilty carried a mandatory life sentence. We reasoned that there was prejudice because there was evidence that, but for the attorney's advice, the defendant would not have pled guilty, and might have been convicted of a lesser offense. Id. at 664. Similarly, there can be no doubt that an attorney can be ineffective in giving his client advice which leads him to turn down a favorable plea agreement if the attorney is not aware of the applicable basic sentencing law. Here, however, Baker has not shown that if his attorney had been aware of the sentencing law he might have obtained a sentence of 30 years with a 15-year term of parole ineligibility by pleading guilty or, indeed, obtained a sentence for any period less than that the court ultimately imposed. If Baker's attorney had known of the sentencing amendment he would have had the professional duty to alert the State and the court of the amendment because a defendant cannot bargain for an illegal sentence. See, e.g., In re Norton, 608 A.2d 328, 338 (N.J. 1992); State v. Nemeth, 519 A.2d 367, 368 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1986) ([T]here can be no plea bargain to an illegal sentence.); see also N.J. Rule of Professional Conduct 3.3(a)(3) (A lawyer shall not knowingly fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel.); 3.3(a)(5) (A lawyer shall not knowingly fail to disclose to the tribunal a material fact with the knowledge that the tribunal may tend to be misled by such failure.). Therefore, if Baker's attorney had known of the correct sentence for the kidnaping, and thus had been an effective counsel, Baker 9 could not have accepted the plea offer as it required him to plead guilty to first degree kidnaping in circumstances in which the applicable statute required a sentence with a 25year mandatory period of parole ineligibility. It therefore follows that, if his attorney had not been ineffective, Baker could have obtained a 30-year sentence with a 15-year period of parole ineligibility only if his attorney could have negotiated for a dismissal of the kidnaping count. But it is mere speculation to think that he could have done so. After all, Baker cannot demonstrate that there was a reasonable probability that the prosecutor would have negotiated a plea agreement that would frustrate the Legislature's then recently adopted requirement for a 25-year period of parole ineligibility in the circumstances of this case. Furthermore, even if Baker could have negotiated the agreement with the prosecutor, it could have been implemented only with the consent of the trial court because New Jersey state court practice permits the trial court to reject a guilty plea even when tendered pursuant to a plea agreement. See N.J. Ct. R. 3:9-2; 3:9-3. While we never can know whether the trial court would have accepted the hypothetical plea agreement, the Appellate Division on Baker's second appeal indicated that it was unwilling to frustrate [the] legislative directive for a 25-year period of parole ineligibility. Thus, for that reason, among others, it upheld the resentencing. Baker cannot demonstrate that there is a reasonable probability that a trial court's attitude would have been any different. State v. Baker, 636 A.2d at 564. In considering whether there was a reasonable probability that Baker would have been able to negotiate for a dismissal of the kidnaping charge, it is important to recognize how severe the prosecutor's bargaining position had been. During the negotiations the parties believed that the proposed plea agreement which included a 30-year term with a 15-year period of parole ineligibility was the maximum sentence for the kidnaping offense. See N.J. Stat. Ann. S 2C:13-1c; N.J. Stat. Ann. S 2C:43-6b (West 1995). Indeed, while it was possible that by reason of the imposition of consecutive sentences on separate counts that upon Baker's conviction the court could have imposed 10 a longer custodial term, see State v. Baker, 636 A.2d at 561, the proposed sentence was so long that Baker's attorney advised him that he had nothing to lose by going to trial. Moreover, the court upon Baker's conviction sentenced him to a 27-year term with an 11-year period of parole ineligibility, in a sense vindicating Baker's attorney's position which, in the absence of the sentencing amendment, would have been unassailable. It is, of course, unusual for a court to sentence a defendant upon his conviction at trial to a shorter sentence than that offered prior to trial6 and the court's action plainly demonstrates that the prosecutor in his sentencing offer was not being lenient with Baker. In view of this attitude, Baker cannot demonstrate that if the prosecutor had known of the 25year mandatory period of parole ineligibility, he would have been willing to enter into a plea agreement which included a dismissal of the kidnaping charge. Plainly, the reasonable inference we draw from the objective evidence is exactly to the contrary. Thus, Baker cannot demonstrate that there is a reasonable probability that his attorney's error had any effect on the outcome of the case. We recognize that the district court did not conduct an evidentiary hearing in this case and that sometimes it is necessary for the court to hold such a hearing to resolve disputed questions of fact. But this case does not fall within that category as the nature of Baker's claim is such that his chances for relief must remain nothing more than a possibility. Consequently, we will not remand so that the district court can preside over a charade in which witnesses testify about hypothetical conduct. In these circumstances, we cannot hold that there is a reasonable probability that but for his attorney's error, the result of this case could have been different.7 _________________________________________________________________ 6. This sentencing approach is well known to all attorneys practicing criminal law and is nothing new. See Comment, The Influence of the Defendant's Plea on Judicial Determination of Sentence, 66 Yale L.J. 204 (1956). 7. We note that the dissent suggests that on a remand the district court could inquire into whether the attorney who, on Baker's behalf, filed his 11 Some context as to the trial testimony is helpful in explaining our decision. The first victim, Soto, tentatively identified Baker as the driver of the car which pulled up beside her and she positively identified Baker at trial. The second victim, M.B., testified that Baker attempted to sexually assault her but that she bit him and that this deterred his attack. While M.B. immediately after the crime did not identify Baker from a photo array, she was able to do so a few weeks later and she identified him at trial. Garry testified for the State that he and Baker committed both crimes, but he testified that he, not Baker, drove the car, and that it was Baker who jumped out to grab Soto and, later that evening, M.B.8 He also testified that both he and Baker sexually assaulted M.B. in the car. Further, Detective Conrad Cheatham of the Elizabeth Police Department, who arrested Baker, testified that Baker admitted participating in the assault upon Soto, stating that Garry drove the car while he attacked Soto. State v. Baker, 636 A.2d at 558. Given the strength of this evidence, there is no reasonable probability that in order to accommodate Baker the State would have dropped thefirstdegree kidnaping charge if it had been aware of the 25-year _________________________________________________________________ first appeal, was ineffective because he apparently did not advise Baker that he faced a longer sentence by appealing. This appellate attorney, who was an Assistant Deputy Public Defender, had not represented Baker in the plea negotiations and at the trial. The problem with this suggestion, quite aside from any ethical considerations that might have compelled the attorney to share his knowledge of the sentencing error with the state, if he had any such knowledge, is that Baker never has raised this issue in either the state or federal courts. For example, in this court he contends in his brief that his constitutional rights were violated because he received ineffective counsel during the plea negotiations of his case, trial counsel was ineffective because he failed to make sufficient efforts to research the applicable sentencing law, and his Sixth Amendment rights were violated because the cumulative effect of counsel's errors denied him effective assistance of counsel. His brief makes plain that his reference to the cumulative errors means error at trial. 8. Of course, if the State had been aware of the mandatory sentence, it could not have made the plea agreement it did make with Garry and perhaps his testimony would not have been available in Baker's case. 12 mandatory imprisonment term without parole eligibility or that the court would have approved any such action. Of course, we cannot replay the events of the pre-trial proceedings. Yet it is clear enough that the Strickland test requires a showing that a defendant has been deprived of a just result due to ineffective counsel. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 686, 104 S.Ct. at 2064. The State's cross-appeal to correct the sentence provided Baker with what he would have had if he had received effective representation during the plea stage, the right to be sentenced legally. His attorney's mistake in no way affected the constitutionality of the subsequent trial. The mistake deprived Baker only of the possibility to negotiate for the dismissal of the kidnaping charge, but as we have indicated, he cannot show that he was prejudiced by the loss of this speculative opportunity. Thus, his Sixth Amendment claim must fail.