Gerald Funk v. Superintendent Somerset SCI
19-2972
| 3rd Cir. | Aug 10, 2021Background
- In 1998 Gerald Funk was charged with rape, aggravated assault, robbery, and attempted murder based on an attack on a 64‑year‑old woman; DNA linked Funk to the rape count.
- Multiple plea discussions occurred: a July 2000 meeting (disputed whether Funk was present) and a December 2000 meeting immediately before trial in which the DA offered a one‑count rape plea with a recommended 8–20 year sentence.
- Funk contends defense counsel Michael Suders failed to (a) convey the July offer, (b) explain the December offer and advise him to accept it, and (c) accurately describe the post‑impanelment plea status (Funk believed pleas after jury selection would have to be “open” to all counts).
- The jury convicted Funk at trial and he received a 30–60 year sentence. Funk pursued state collateral relief (PCRA); the PCRA court held hearings, found Suders and the DA credible, and rejected Funk’s ineffective‑assistance claims.
- Funk filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254; the District Court denied relief. This Court granted a COA limited to the claim that counsel failed to explain or accurately advise Funk about plea offers and affirmed the denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Suders failed to convey the July 2000 plea offer | Funk: Suders did not inform him of the July offer and would have accepted it | Suders: he always communicated plea offers; PCRA found Suders credible | Court: Funk’s speculation insufficient; PCRA credibility finding reasonable; no deficient performance |
| Whether Suders failed to explain the December 2000 offer and advise acceptance (including failing to tell Funk judge waived "open‑plea" policy) | Funk: Suders didn’t explain terms or advise, and didn’t tell him the judge waived the open‑plea policy, so Funk rejected a favorable one‑count offer | Suders + DA: DA explained the 8–20 offer; Suders discussed plea options; Funk rejected the offer himself; PCRA credited counsel and DA | Court: PCRA reasonably credited counsel/DA; Funk knowingly rejected the one‑count offer; no Strickland deficiency |
| Whether Suders misrepresented the post‑impanelment status (said offer was "open") | Funk: Suders’ statement that the offer was "open" led Funk to believe only open pleas to all counts were possible | Suders: his comment reasonably meant the offer remained available; he did not admit misrepresentation | Court: Record doesn’t show misrepresentation; interpretation that offer was still available is reasonable; no deficient performance |
| Whether the state court unreasonably applied Strickland under AEDPA | Funk: PCRA misapplied Strickland and failed to parse separate incidents | Commonwealth: PCRA applied the correct standard and made reasonable factual credibility determinations | Court: AEDPA deference applies; PCRA’s application of Strickland was reasonable; habeas relief denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑part test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (doubly deferential review when Strickland and AEDPA both apply)
- Missouri v. Frye, 566 U.S. 134 (2012) (defense counsel’s duty to communicate plea offers)
- Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (2012) (prejudice analysis where rejected plea could have been accepted)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (applying Strickland to guilty‑plea context)
- Taylor v. Horn, 504 F.3d 416 (3d Cir. 2007) (AEDPA deference to state courts’ legal and factual determinations)
- Werts v. Vaughn, 228 F.3d 178 (3d Cir. 2000) (state ineffective‑assistance standard consistent with Strickland)