Jerome Byrd v. Greg Skipper
940 F.3d 248
| 6th Cir. | 2019Background
- In Feb 2010 Byrd supplied a gun and accompanied Charletta Atkinson to an ATM robbery; Atkinson shot and killed the victim. Byrd was charged as an aider and abettor and faced mandatory life without parole under Michigan law for felony murder.
- Atkinson pleaded guilty to second-degree murder and felony firearm (30–50 years) and agreed to testify against Byrd. Wayne County practice was to wait for defense counsel to seek plea offers.
- Byrd’s trial counsel, Marvin Barnett, met with Byrd only briefly, insisted on going to trial, gave erroneous advice about Michigan law (overstating an abandonment defense and misdescribing accomplice liability), and did not initiate plea negotiations.
- Byrd was convicted of first-degree felony murder and sentenced to life without parole. State courts denied relief; Byrd filed a §2254 habeas petition asserting ineffective assistance of counsel based on failure to pursue a plea.
- The district court denied the writ (granting COA). The Sixth Circuit majority reversed, finding (1) counsel’s performance was deficient and (2) Byrd showed Strickland prejudice because there was a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, plea negotiations would have produced a favorable, court-approvable plea. The majority remanded to grant a writ unless the state reopens proceedings within 180 days.
- A dissent argued the claim fails as a matter of law because no plea offer was ever made; Lafler/Frye require an actual offer (there is no constitutional right to plea bargaining), and federal habeas may not compel the state to create a plea offer or otherwise provide the requested remedy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Byrd) | Defendant's Argument (Warden/State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel was constitutionally deficient pretrial by failing to initiate plea negotiations and by misadvising about abandonment/acquittal | Barnett misread the law, promised acquittal, failed to explain elements/sentencing, and prevented plea talks | Barnett testified Byrd asserted innocence and wanted trial; no deficient performance | Majority: counsel was deficient for patently erroneous legal advice and failure to advise about plea risks; defense errors fell below professional norms |
| Whether Byrd suffered Strickland prejudice from counsel’s failures (i.e., reasonable probability of a better plea outcome) | Prosecutor was willing to negotiate; Atkinson’s plea showed favorable deals were available; Byrd would have accepted less than LWOP | No formal plea was ever offered; Byrd professed innocence and prior statements suggest he would not have pled | Majority: prejudice established — reasonable probability Byrd would have negotiated and accepted a favorable plea that the court would have approved |
| Whether the Sixth Amendment protects opportunity to obtain a plea when the prosecution never offered one (threshold issue) | Right to effective counsel extends to plea negotiations even before an offer; precedent allows showing reasonable probability of a negotiated plea | Lafler/Frye and Weatherford mean there is no constitutional right to be offered a plea; without an offer the claim fails | Majority: Strickland applies de novo here; lack of preexisting offer is not a jurisdictional bar. Dissent: claim fails because no offer was made and the Constitution does not guarantee plea bargaining |
| Appropriate remedy when no plea was previously offered | Vacate/return to pretrial so Byrd can negotiate; issue writ unless state reopens within 180 days | Federal courts lack power to force a prosecutor to craft an offer; Lafler’s remedial framework presumes an earlier offer and leaves discretion to trial courts | Majority: remanded directing district court to issue writ unless state reopens; Dissent: such relief exceeds Lafler, frustrates separation of powers, and should be denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-part ineffective-assistance standard: deficiency and prejudice)
- Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (2012) (prejudice test and remedial framework in plea-offer context)
- Missouri v. Frye, 566 U.S. 134 (2012) (duty to communicate formal plea offers; role of plea offers in prejudice analysis)
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (plea negotiation is a critical stage; duty to give correct advice when law is clear)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (Strickland applies to advice about pleas)
- Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545 (1977) (no constitutional right to plea bargaining)
- Rodriguez-Penton v. United States, 905 F.3d 481 (6th Cir. 2018) (circuit guidance on prejudice from deficient plea advice and negotiation dynamics)
- Magana v. Hofbauer, 263 F.3d 542 (6th Cir. 2001) (standard of review on habeas legal questions and factual findings)