Legal Document

467 U.S. 504 104 S.Ct. 2543 81 L.Ed.2d 437 James MABRY, Commissioner, Arkansas Department of Correctionv.George JOHNSON. No. 83-328. Supreme Court the United States Argued April 16, 1984. Decided June 11, Syllabus After respondent was convicted in an state court on charges burglary, assault, and murder, set aside murder conviction, plea negotiations ensued. A deputy prosecutor proposed to respondent's attorney that exchange for a guilty charge accessory after felony would recommend 21-year sentence be served concurrently with concurrent burglary assault sentences. However, when defense counsel called three days later communicated acceptance offer, told mistake had been made withdrew offer. He instead he consecutively other Respondent rejected new but mistrial declared, ultimately accepted prosecutor's second trial judge imposed previous exhausting remedies, sought habeas corpus relief Federal District respect his plea. The dismissed petition, holding understood consequences plea, received effective assistance counsel, because it not established detrimentally relied first agreement, no right enforce it. Appeals reversed, "fairness" precluded prosecution's withdrawal proposal once by respondent. Held: Respondent's bargain did create constitutional have specifically enforced, may successfully attack subsequent Plea agreements are consistent requirements pleas voluntarily intelligently. If defendant fairly apprised its consequences, can challenged under Due Process Clause. And prosecution breaches promise executed pleads false premise, hence conviction cannot stand. sense induced withdrawn rested unfulfilled promise; knew consecutive sentence. Thus, impair voluntariness or intelligence inability offer is without significance. Neither question whether negligent otherwise culpable making then withdrawing relevant. Cf. Santobello v. New York, 404 257, 92 495, 30 427. Pp. 507-511. 707 F.2d 323 (CA8 1983), reversed. John Steven Clark, Brinkley, Ark., petitioner. Jerrold J. Ganzfried, Washington, D.C., as amicus curiae, special leave Court. Richard Quiggle, Little Rock, Justice STEVENS delivered opinion 1 presented defendant's creates enforced. 2 In late evening May 22, 1970, members family returned home find progress. Shots were exchanged resulting daughter's death wounding father respondent—one burglars. tried charges: murder. Court, Johnson State, 252 Ark. 1113, 482 S.W.2d 600 (1972). Thereafter, 3 At time serving 21- 12-year sentences convictions. On Friday, October 27, 1972, 21 years following day, who agreed accept next Monday lawyer "and [respondent's] offer." App. 10. 4 elected stand trial. day trial, declared resumed, accordance bargain, 5 filed petition writ 28 U.S.C. § 2254.1 finding evidence establish over Judge R. Gibson's dissent. majority concluded Because conflict Circuits,2 coupled our concern important wrongly decided, we granted certiorari, 464 1017, 547, 78 722 (1983). We now reverse.3 6 obtain federal only if custody violation Constitution.4 standing alone significance; itself mere executory agreement which, until embodied judgment court, does deprive accused liberty any constitutionally protected interest.5 It ensuing implicates Constitution. Only pleaded convicted, which gave rise deprivation at issue here.6 7 well settled voluntary intelligent person, has advised competent collaterally attacked.7 also intelligence—because each side advantages sentencing concessions, less than bargained-for exchange.8 consensual character into validity impaired. Brady States, 397 742, 90 1463, 25 747 (1970), stated applicable standard: 8 " '[A] entered one fully aware direct including actual value commitments him prosecutor, own must unless threats (or promises discontinue improper harassment), misrepresentation (including unfulfillable promises), perhaps their nature having proper relationship business (e.g. bribes).' Id., 755, S.Ct., 1472 (quoting Shelton 246 571, 572, n. (CA5 1957) (en banc) (in turn quoting 242 101, 115 (Tuttle, J., dissenting panel opinion)), rev'd grounds, 356 26, 563, 579 (1958). 9 develops 427 (1971), illustrates point. began acknowledging conditions valid "presuppose fairness securing between prosecutor. . must, course, knowing promises, essence those some way known." 261-262, 498. follows stand: "[W]hen rests significant degree so said part inducement consideration, such fulfilled." 262, 499.9 demonstrates why guilty. offer; unlike Santobello, thinking bargained specific prosecutorial recommendation made, challenge Court's advice full awareness consequences—he could impose attack.10 thus product governmental deception; "unfulfilled promise" satisfied test intelligence. 10 significance.11 Clause code ethics prosecutors; manner persons deprived liberty.12 Here fundamentally unfair way. likely guilty; expect live now. 11 Reversed. referred Magistrate conducted evidentiary hearing recommended findings fact conclusions law, subsequently adopted. Compare Virgin Islands Scotland, 614 360 (CA3 1980), Greenman, 700 1377 (CA11), cert. denied, 992, 482, 680 (1983), Cooper 594 12 (CA4 1979). This case moot despite paroled. remains "custody" see Jones Cunningham, 371 236, 83 373, 285 (1963); generally Justices Boston Municipal Lydon, 466 294, 300-302, 1805, 1809-1810, 80 311 (1984); Hensley 411 345, 93 1571, 36 294 (1973); serve prior will affect date parole expire Ark.Stat.Ann. 43-2807(c) (Supp.1983). duration therefore live. E.g., Townsend Sain, 372 293, 312, 745, 756, 770 (1963). pertinent part, statute provides: "The thereof, circuit judge, district shall entertain application behalf person pursuant State ground Constitution laws treaties States." 2254(a). Under there entitlement since negotiated bind Varnedare 264 596, 599, 573 57, 60 (1978); Marshall 262 726, 561 76 Ark.Rule Crim.Proc. 25.3(c); critical difference hope expectation follow recommendation, Olim Wakinekona, 461 238, 248-251, 103 1741, 1747-1748, 75 813 (1983); Jago Van Curen, 454 14, 19-21, 102 31, 34-35, 70 13 (1981) (per curiam); Connecticut Board Pardons Dumschat, 452 458, 465-467, 101 2460, 2464-2465, 69 158 (1981); Meachum Fano, 215, 226-227, 96 2532, 2539, 49 451 (1976). See Boykin Alabama, 395 89 1709, 23 274 (1969); Kercheval 220, 223, 47 582, 583, 71 L.Ed. 1009 (1927). Tollett Henderson, 258, 266-267, 1602, 1607-1608, 235 North Carolina Alford, 400 25, 91 160, 164, 27 162 (1970); Parker Carolina, 790, 797-798, 1458, 1462-1463, 785 McMann Richardson, 759, 772, 1441, 1449, 763 747-748, 1468, (1970). Henderson Morgan, 426 637, 2253, 108 (1976); Menna 423 61, 241, 46 195 (1975) curiam). Corbitt Jersey, 439 212, 219-220, 222-223, 99 492, 497-498, 499, 58 Bordenkircher Hayes, 434 357, 363, 98 663, 667, 54 604 Blackledge Allison, 431 63, 71, 97 1621, 1627, 52 136 (1977); 260-261, (1971). For example, wrote: "For sees slight possibility acquittal, pleading limiting probable penalty obvious—his exposure reduced, correctional processes begin immediately, practical burdens eliminated. advantages—the more promptly punishment admission guilt effectively attain objectives punishment; avoidance scarce judicial resources conserved cases substantial doubt sustain burden proof. this mutuality advantage explains present three-fourths criminal convictions country rest guilty, great many them motivated least assurance lesser might verdict jury." U.S., 752, 1471 (footnotes omitted). 266, 501 (Douglas, concurring); id., 269, 502 (MARSHALL, concurring part). suggests initial undermined confidence Sixth Amendment counsel. argument simply odds reason. Prosecutors often come view offense seriously during course pretrial investigation reasons entirely unrelated what done do. Goodwin, 457 368, 381, 2485, 2493, 73 74 (1982). fail how reasonably attribute change heart blamed chosen reject agreed-upon or, matter, gone convicted. respondent; all requires. Cronic, 648, 656-657, 19, 2039, 2045, 657 266-268, 1607-1608; 1462-1463; 770-771, 1448-1449. Indeed, even invalid, expressly declined hold compels performance broken remedy plea; clear permitting replead within range appropriate remedies. 262-263, 498-499; 268-269, rights violated. breached "promise" him, worse position permitted replead. relevance culpability: "It conceded abstain from stage good argue inadvertent breach immaterial. staff lawyers office 'letting left hand know doing' done. That lessen impact." 499. Agurs, 97, 110, 2392, 2400, 342

Classification Label: 0