75 F.4th 1164
11th Cir.2023Background
- Brandon Washington, an 18-year-old college student, was tried for capital murder; mid-trial the prosecutor placed on the record a life-with-parole plea offer that Washington (through counsel) reportedly rejected.
- Trial jury convicted Washington and initially recommended death; after multiple appeals and resentencings, Washington ultimately received life without parole.
- Washington later filed state habeas claiming his trial counsel failed to inform him of a separate mid-trial 30-year plea offer; the 30-year offer did not appear on the trial record.
- Washington submitted an affidavit from his grandmother, Amanda, and the parties stipulated that her affidavit be taken as true; Amanda stated she never heard of any offer other than life.
- The state habeas court denied relief after crediting affidavits from trial counsel (Anthony) and the prosecutor (Anderton) that the 30-year offer was communicated and rejected; the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed.
- The federal district court denied habeas relief but granted a Certificate of Appealability on whether counsel was ineffective for failing to convey the 30-year offer. The Eleventh Circuit held the state courts made unreasonable factual determinations under AEDPA and vacated and remanded for an evidentiary hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Washington's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel conveyed the 30‑year plea offer (Strickland performance) | Anthony did not tell Washington about the 30‑year offer; Amanda's affidavit (taken as true) supports that claim | Anthony and Anderton averred the 30‑year offer was communicated to Washington (and Amanda) and rejected | ACCA’s finding that Washington received the offer was unreasonable because the state court was bound to accept Amanda’s affidavit but did not reconcile inconsistencies in her favor; performance question cleared AEDPA deference and requires development at hearing |
| Whether Washington would have accepted the 30‑year offer (Strickland prejudice prong 1) | Washington would have accepted 30 years despite maintaining innocence | State relied on Washington’s prior rejection of a life offer and his protestations of innocence to conclude he would not have accepted | It was unreasonable to treat his protestations of innocence and earlier rejection of life as dispositive; innocence claims do not automatically disprove that a defendant would have accepted a plea; remand for factual development and evidentiary hearing required |
| Whether the trial court would have accepted a 30‑year plea (Strickland prejudice prong 2) | A reasonable judge could have accepted the negotiated 30‑year agreement | State asserted the trial court would have rejected it based on Washington’s in‑court rejection of the earlier offer and proclamation of innocence | State habeas judge’s after‑the‑fact assumption that the trial judge would not have approved was unreasonable; whether a reasonable jurist would have accepted the deal requires factfinding at a hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑part test for ineffective assistance: performance and prejudice)
- Missouri v. Frye, 566 U.S. 134 (2012) (duty to communicate plea offers; prejudice framework when offers are not conveyed)
- Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (2012) (application of Frye/Strickland prejudice principles to rejected plea negotiations)
- Wilson v. Sellers, 138 S. Ct. 1188 (2018) (review on habeas looks to the last reasoned state-court decision)
- Brumfield v. Cain, 576 U.S. 305 (2015) (state‑court factual findings entitled to deference unless unreasonable)
- Pye v. Warden, Ga. Diagnostic Prison, 50 F.4th 1025 (11th Cir. 2022) (evaluating when state‑court factual errors render §2254(d)(2) relief appropriate)
- Griffin v. United States, 330 F.3d 733 (6th Cir. 2003) (protestations of innocence do not conclusively preclude showing one would have accepted a plea)
- Lalani v. United States, [citation="315 F. App'x 858"] (11th Cir. 2009) (following Griffin and remanding for evidentiary hearing on uncommunicated plea claims)
- Consalvo v. Sec'y for Dep't of Corr., 664 F.3d 842 (11th Cir. 2011) (credibility determinations ordinarily for state courts)
- Madison v. Comm'r, Ala. Dep't of Corr., 761 F.3d 1240 (11th Cir. 2014) (remanding for an evidentiary hearing where factual development is required)