Opinion ID: 571296
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Mr. Hernandez's contentions

Text: 12 Mr. Hernandez submits that the conduct of the government in attempting to immunize him when they knew he had entered a plea of guilty based upon non-cooperation interfered with the defendant's right to effective assistance of counsel. Appellee's Br. at 8. Mr. Hernandez argues that he was not advised effectively by his attorney when the attorney incorrectly reported to him the terms of the plea agreement. He further submits that permission to withdraw the plea did not correct the situation because his confidence in his counsel had to have been compromised. This lack of confidence, he argues, meant that counsel's assistance was also ineffective during trial. Mr. Hernandez contends that the only remedy for the alleged constitutional violation is dismissal of the indictment. 13 Mr. Hernandez relies on Cooper v. United States, 594 F.2d 12 (4th Cir.1979). In Cooper, the government withdrew its offer of a plea agreement after defense counsel had communicated it to the defendant and the defendant had instructed his attorney to accept it. The Fourth Circuit determined that the government's failure to honor its plea proposal violated the defendant's right to due process and to effective assistance of counsel. Cooper, 594 F.2d at 18-19. The court stated: 14 Because prosecutors are required to conduct plea negotiations through defense counsel, the government's position and communications in plea discussions are necessarily mediated to the defendant through his counsel. For this reason, not only the credit and integrity of the government but those of his counsel are involved in a defendant's perception of the process.... To the extent that the government attempts through defendant's counsel to change or retract positions earlier communicated, a defendant's confidence in his counsel's capability and professional responsibility, as well as in the government's reliability, are necessarily jeopardized and the effectiveness of counsel's assistance easily compromised. At the very least, these Sixth Amendment considerations add a heightened degree of obligation to the government's fundamental duty to negotiate with scrupulous fairness in seeking guilty pleas. 15 Id. Although in Cooper there was no suggestion ... of deliberate abuse of the assumed opportunity freely to make and withdraw plea proposals as a means of testing the wills and confidence of defendants and their counsel or of deliberate harassment, the court ordered the remedy of specific enforcement of the plea proposal, to the extent then possible. Id. at 20.