938 N.W.2d 31
Mich. Ct. App.2019Background
- In 2001 Walker was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder and felony-firearm; convictions affirmed on direct review in 2005.
- Prosecutor had made a pretrial plea offer to second-degree murder (25–50 years) plus two years for felony-firearm; Walker’s trial counsel did not notify him of the offer.
- Walker later sought postconviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to convey the plea; the Michigan Supreme Court remanded for a Ginther hearing under guidance from Frye/Lafler.
- Trial court found counsel ineffective; prosecution was ordered to reoffer the plea and Walker pleaded guilty and was resentenced accordingly.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, finding Walker failed to show a reasonable probability he would have accepted the plea; the Michigan Supreme Court then remanded to the Court of Appeals to decide whether Lafler v. Cooper should be applied retroactively to a conviction final in 2005.
- On remand the Court of Appeals held Lafler does not announce a new rule and therefore applies retroactively, and affirmed the trial court’s relief to Walker.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lafler v. Cooper announced a new rule for retroactivity (Teague framework) | Lafler created a new constitutional rule and thus should not apply retroactively to convictions final before Lafler | Lafler merely applied Strickland’s ineffective-assistance standard to plea-bargaining facts and did not create a new rule; therefore it is retroactive | Lafler did not announce a new rule; it applied Strickland to a factual context, so it applies retroactively |
| Whether Walker satisfied Lafler/Strickland prejudice (would have accepted plea, offer would remain, court would accept plea, sentence less severe) | Walker can show prejudice because counsel failed to convey the offer and he received a harsher result at trial | Prosecutor argued Walker failed to prove a reasonable probability he would have accepted the plea | Trial court found prejudice satisfied; Court of Appeals on remand affirmed that application of Lafler retroactively supports relief (trial court’s grant of relief affirmed) |
| Whether AEDPA/Teague principles bar collateral relief based on Lafler | AEDPA/Teague prevent retroactive application if Lafler is a new rule | Because Lafler applied clearly established Strickland law, AEDPA does not bar relief and Teague’s bar to new rules is not implicated | AEDPA/Teague do not bar relief because Lafler is not a new rule; retroactive application permitted |
| Whether lower-court and out-of-state authority supports retroactivity | Some jurisdictions (e.g., Utah) treated Lafler as new rule; conflicting authority exists | Many federal circuits concluded Lafler is not a new rule and is consistent with Strickland/Hill | Court found the federal-circuit analyses persuasive and adopted retroactive application |
Key Cases Cited
- Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (2012) (applies Strickland prejudice framework to rejected plea offers and prescribes remedial options)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (applies Strickland to ineffective-assistance claims arising from guilty pleas)
- Chaidez v. United States, 568 U.S. 342 (2013) (Teague retroactivity framework and when a decision announces a new rule)
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (held counsel must advise about deportation risk; treated as announcing a new rule for retroactivity purposes)
- People v. Barnes, 502 Mich. 265 (2018) (Michigan discussion of retroactivity and Teague principles)