Benitez v. United States
2013 D.C. App. LEXIS 47
| D.C. | 2013Background
- Benitez and Sarmiento-Morales were offered wired pleas to first-degree burglary with other charges dismissed, contingent on both defendants accepting.
- The offers expired July 28, 2005; during pretrial, prosecutors stated the defendants were rejecting the offer in the judge’s presence.
- Benitez was convicted on assault-related crimes and sentenced to 182 months; Sarmiento-Morales received a 96-month sentence for related offenses.
- Benitez alleged his attorney failed to inform him of the plea, violating Strickland v. Washington; evidentiary hearing credited Benitez that counsel erred.
- The trial court ruled Benitez could not show prejudice because the wired offer could not be unwired or co-defendant’s participation could not be shown; the DC Circuit affirmed denial but remanded for further proceedings.
- On appeal, the court remands to allow full evidentiary development of prejudice under the Strickland standard in light of Frye and Lafler.
- Superior Court Guidelines and relative sentencing ranges are discussed for Benitez and Sarmiento-Morales; full guideline ranges depend on co-defendant history.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prejudice standard application | Benitez demands Frye/Lafler prejudice standard; requires reasonable probability of a different outcome. | Gaviria-like framework may require proof of unwired plea or co-defendant participation; outdated standard may suffice. | Remanded for further proceedings to evaluate Strickland prejudice under Frye/Lafler. |
| Required showing given wired plea condition | Benitez need show only reasonable probability he would have accepted. | Must show either co-defendant would plead guilty or government would unwind the offer. | Frye/Lafler require showing either unwiring or co-defendant's willingness; remand to address. |
| Sarmiento-Morales’s likely participation | Co-defendant would have joined if allowed; wired condition should be waived. | No evidence of Sarmiento-Morales’s interest or attorney's efforts; speculation not enough. | Record insufficient to conclude; remand to develop evidence on co-defendant’s stance. |
| Remand authority and scope | Court should permit additional evidence to determine whether prejudice exists under new standards. | Original record adequate; remand unnecessary. | Court grants remand to adjudicate prejudice under Frye/Lafler standards. |
Key Cases Cited
- Missouri v. Frye, 132 S. Ct. 1399 (2012) (counsel must inform defendant of plea offers; prejudice requires probable outcome under plea)
- Lafler v. Cooper, 132 S. Ct. 1376 (2012) (ineffective assistance when counsel misadvises rejection of offer; requires probability of better outcome)
- United States v. Gaviria, 116 F.3d 1498 (D.C. Cir.1997) (wireless vs wired plea requires showing co-defendant or unwired offer to prevail)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (establishes dual prongs for ineffective assistance and prejudice)