Beavers v. State
2016 Ark. 277
| Ark. | 2016Background
- Clint Beavers was charged with rape (minimum 25 years; parole eligibility at 70% of term) and was offered a plea to second-degree sexual assault for 20 years (parole eligibility would have been governed by statutes making it one-third to one-sixth of the term).
- Defense counsel Mark Fraiser conveyed the 20-year offer to Beavers and his father but gave incorrect information about parole eligibility for the plea (confused "above-/below-the-line" and the fractions for parole eligibility).
- Beavers rejected the plea, proceeded to trial, was convicted, and received a 25-year sentence with parole eligibility at 70%.
- Beavers filed a timely Rule 37.1 postconviction petition claiming ineffective assistance of counsel during plea bargaining; the circuit court denied relief after finding Beavers was informed and rejecting the claim.
- The Arkansas Supreme Court held the circuit court’s findings were clearly erroneous, concluded counsel’s incorrect parole advice was deficient under Strickland/Lafler, found prejudice (Beavers testified he would have accepted the plea), reversed, remanded, and ordered the State to reoffer the 20-year plea.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Beavers) | Defendant's Argument (State / Counsel) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did counsel provide ineffective assistance during plea bargaining? | Fraiser misadvised parole eligibility for the 20-year plea, causing Beavers to reject it. | Counsel argued he discussed the offer and Beavers/ father rejected it; Beavers was not inclined to accept anything above probation. | Yes — counsel's inaccurate parole advice during plea negotiations was deficient. |
| Did counsel's performance fall below objective reasonableness? | Misstating parole eligibility for the pleaded charge is objectively unreasonable. | Frasier characterized his statements as strategic or mistaken and relied on his litigation strategy. | Yes — the court found the misstatements were more than strategy and admitted as incorrect. |
| Did Beavers show prejudice from the deficient performance? | He testified he would have accepted the 20-year plea if properly advised; plea would have yielded substantially earlier parole eligibility. | Counsel and the circuit court found conflicting testimony and believed Beavers was unlikely to accept a deal other than probation. | Yes — court credited Beavers’ testimony and found a reasonable probability the plea would have been accepted and been less severe. |
| Were the circuit court’s factual findings clearly erroneous? | The record did not show adequate explanation of parole differences; trial colloquy reflected confusion. | The circuit court resolved credibility in favor of counsel and found the offer was discussed and rejected. | Yes — appellate court held the circuit court’s findings were clearly erroneous and reversed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (2012) (Sixth Amendment right to effective counsel extends to plea bargaining; Strickland applies to rejected/lapsed plea offers)
- Missouri v. Frye, 566 U.S. 134 (2012) (duty to communicate plea offers; prejudice requires reasonable probability the offer would have been accepted and entered)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance: performance and prejudice)
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (counsel must give correct immigration-related advice; cited for the principle counsel’s advice about collateral consequences matters)
- McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759 (1970) (recognition that effective assistance of counsel applies in plea negotiations)