Nicanor Rodriguez v. Dennis Bush
842 F.3d 343
| 4th Cir. | 2016Background
- Rodriguez accepted a state plea deal (20-year recommendation) on the day of his South Carolina trial after earlier rejecting a 25-year offer; co-defendants’ similar pleas were accepted.
- The trial judge privately told counsel he would not accept Rodriguez’s plea, saying he “was ready to try a case,” and gave no on-the-record reasons; counsel did not object on the record.
- Rodriguez was tried by jury, convicted of multiple drug-trafficking counts, and sentenced to 45 years (aggregate).
- Rodriguez filed a state postconviction relief (PCR) motion arguing the judge’s plea rejection violated due process and that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object and preserve the issue; the PCR court denied relief and the South Carolina Supreme Court denied certiorari.
- Rodriguez then filed a federal § 2254 petition alleging ineffective assistance under Strickland for counsel’s failure to object; the district court denied the petition and this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not objecting to the judge’s off-the-record rejection of the plea | Rodriguez: counsel should have objected and preserved a federal due process claim that the judge rejected the plea improperly | State: there is no federal right to have a plea accepted; an objection asserting such a right would be meritless | Held: Counsel’s failure to object caused no Strickland prejudice because a federal due process claim would have been meritless |
| Whether a judge’s rejection of a plea implicates a federal due process right | Rodriguez: Santobello requires that rejection be in “exercise of sound judicial discretion,” creating due process protection | State: Santobello does not create a federal right; Supreme Court later clarified no federal right to have a plea accepted | Held: No federal due process right that a judge must accept a plea bargain |
| Whether federal Rule 11 governs a state judge’s rejection of a plea | Rodriguez: Rule 11 limits judge’s ability to reject pleas | State: Federal Rule 11 applies only to federal courts, not state trials | Held: Rule 11 does not apply to state court proceedings |
| Whether the state PCR court unreasonably applied federal law under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) | Rodriguez: state court erred in finding no prejudice and denying ineffective-assistance claim | State: state court reasonably applied Strickland and precedent; review is doubly deferential | Held: State court’s denial was reasonable; federal habeas relief denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishing two-prong ineffective-assistance standard)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (deference to state-court adjudications under § 2254(d))
- Missouri v. Frye, 566 U.S. 134 (no federal right to have a plea offer made or accepted)
- Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (application of Strickland when plea offers are involved; judge rejection leaves issue inapplicable)
- Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (plea bargain language; does not create absolute right to have plea accepted)
- Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364 (no prejudice where objection would be wholly meritless)
- Fields v. Attorney Gen. of Md., 956 F.2d 1290 (4th Cir.) (no constitutional right to have a plea bargain accepted)