In re: Michael Perez
682 F.3d 930
| 11th Cir. | 2012Background
- Perez filed a 28 U.S.C. §§ 2255(h) and 2244(b)(3)(A) application seeking authorization to file a second or successive § 2255 motion.
- Authorization may be granted only if the court certifies a prima facie showing of: (i) newly discovered evidence meeting the standard; or (ii) a new retroactive constitutional rule making the claim viable.
- Perez intends to raise two claims: (A) ineffective assistance during plea bargaining and (B) ineffective assistance for not enforcing the plea offer.
- He relies on Frye and Lafler as new rules of constitutional law under § 2255(h)(2).
- The court concludes Frye and Lafler are not new rules but applications of Strickland to plea negotiations, and thus do not satisfy § 2255(h)(2).
- The court also addresses whether Teague and AEDPA principles permit retroactive application in the postconviction context and concludes the claims do not establish a prima facie showing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do Frye and Lafler announce new constitutional rules? | Perez argues they are new rules under § 2255(h)(2). | Perez’s opponents contend Frye/Lafler are applications of Strickland, not new rules. | Not new rules; thus § 2255(h)(2) not satisfied. |
| Do Frye/Lafler render Perez's first claim viable? | First claim relies on Frye/Lafler as basis for ineffective assistance. | Frye/Lafler not new rules, so no viability. | First claim fails to meet criteria. |
| Does Teague/AEDPA retroactivity salvage Perez's second claim? | Second claim relies on retroactive application of Frye/Lafler. | Frye/Lafler not new rules; retroactivity not available. | No prima facie showing; denial affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Missouri v. Frye, 132 S. Ct. 1399 (2012) (application of Strickland to uncommunicated plea offers)
- Lafler v. Cooper, 132 S. Ct. 1399 (2012) (application of Strickland to rejected plea offers; prejudice standard)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (Strickland applies to plea negotiations)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000) (Strickland clearly established law; not new rule under Teague)
- Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989) (new rule retroactivity framework; Teague doctrine)
- Dodd v. United States, 545 U.S. 353 (2005) (dissent referenced re retroactivity in postconviction)