State v. Brown
1 CA-CR 15-0783-PRPC
Ariz. Ct. App.Jun 20, 2017Background
- Brown was indicted for conspiracy to possess marijuana for sale (Count I), possession for sale (Count II), and possession of drug paraphernalia (Count III); he pled guilty to attempted possession for sale (amended Count I) with one prior, and Counts II and III were dismissed.
- The plea agreement sentenced Brown to 6.5 years with 596 days' credit, concurrent with other sentences.
- Brown filed a timely Rule 32 petition raising ineffective assistance of counsel (failure to communicate a plea offer; failure to give a Donald advisement), a Brady/prosecutorial-misconduct claim, and that prior counsel failed to challenge the grand jury and properly explain the plea/sentencing.
- The trial court limited the evidentiary hearing to ineffective-assistance issues (failure to convey the plea offer and Donald advisement) and took evidence; it dismissed the petition after finding Brown was aware of and rejected the offer.
- On appeal, Brown argued trial counsel did not communicate a four-to-six-year plea offer and that, but for that failure, he would have accepted it. The court reviewed for abuse of discretion and applied Strickland and Frye standards for plea-related ineffective assistance claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Brown) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel failed to communicate a four-to-six-year plea offer | Counsel did not inform Brown of the 4–6 year offer, so he lost the chance to accept it | Record and witness testimony show Brown knew of offers and rejected them; he insisted on going to trial | Court held Brown failed to prove counsel deficient or that he would have accepted the offer |
| Whether counsel failed to provide a Donald advisement for the 4–6 year offer | Lack of Donald advisement rendered plea process defective | Brown received a Donald advisement earlier for a different (3–5 year) offer; omission for the later offer was not prejudicial | Court found absence of Donald advisement for that offer did not establish prejudice |
| Whether Brown showed prejudice under Strickland/Frye from a lapsed/rejected plea offer | Brown would have accepted the plea but for counsel’s error, producing a more favorable outcome | Brown’s insistence on innocence and record of rejecting offers undermines claim he would have accepted | Court held Brown failed to demonstrate reasonable probability he would have accepted the earlier offer |
| Whether post-conviction relief was warranted based on trial court’s factual findings | Brown argued the court erred in crediting testimony and inferences | State argued factual findings were supported by testimony and record; appellate review is for abuse of discretion | Court denied relief, concluding findings were not clearly erroneous and no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes performance and prejudice test for ineffective assistance)
- Missouri v. Frye, 566 U.S. 133 (prejudice standard when a plea offer is lost due to counsel’s deficient performance)
- State v. Donald, 198 Ariz. 406 (Arizona requirement to advise defendant about consequences of rejecting plea offers)
- State v. Swoopes, 216 Ariz. 390 (standard of review for post-conviction relief rulings)