State v. Covey
1 CA-CR 14-0672-PRPC
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Apr 20, 2017Background
- Todd Covey was convicted by jury of attempted second-degree murder, aggravated assault, and hindering prosecution; longest concurrent term was 17 years. The convictions were affirmed on appeal, with remand for resentencing on one count.
- Covey filed a timely post-conviction relief (Rule 32) petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for being misadvised about the applicable sentencing range, which led him to reject a State plea offer.
- Trial counsel testified (and conceded) at the evidentiary hearing that he gave Covey erroneous sentencing-range advice: counsel told Covey the range was 7–21 years (presumptive 10.5), but the true aggregate range was 10.5–35 years (presumptive 15.5).
- The State’s plea offer would have exposed Covey to 5–15 years (presumptive 7.5). Covey testified he would have accepted the offer had he been correctly advised.
- The superior court denied relief, finding no prejudice because the 17-year sentence imposed after trial was not “substantially longer or harsher than what was contained in the plea offer.”
- The appellate court granted review, concluded the superior court erred in its prejudice analysis, vacated the denial, and remanded for factual findings on whether Covey would have accepted the plea and whether the court would have accepted it.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Covey) | Defendant's Argument (State / Superior Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel’s erroneous sentencing advice supports an IAC claim regarding rejection of a plea offer | Counsel misadvised Covey about sentencing range; that misinformation caused him to reject a favorable plea | Counsel admits erroneous advice but disputes that Covey proved prejudice required for relief | Court: Erroneous advice established deficient performance for plea-bargain IAC (first Lafler/Frye element) |
| Whether Covey proved prejudice from rejecting the plea (Lafler prejudice test) | But for counsel’s bad advice, Covey would have accepted plea; the plea’s maximum (15) was less than the imposed 17-year sentence | Superior court: 17 years was not substantially harsher than plea; therefore no prejudice | Court: Superior court’s no-prejudice conclusion was legally incorrect—17 years is longer than plea maximum; prejudice established as to sentence severity and court abused its discretion |
| Whether the superior court must make factual findings about (1) whether Covey would have accepted the plea and (2) whether the court would have accepted it | Covey testified he would have accepted the offer absent bad advice | Superior court did not make credibility/findings on these factual questions and denied relief solely on sentence comparison | Court: Remanded for the superior court to resolve these factual issues (credibility and whether court would have accepted the plea) |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (2012) (prejudice standard when ineffective assistance causes rejection of a plea offer)
- Missouri v. Frye, 566 U.S. 134 (2012) (Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance extends to consideration of plea offers)
- State v. Donald, 198 Ariz. 406 (App. 2000) (Arizona precedent applying plea-offer IAC principles)
- State v. Schrock, 149 Ariz. 433 (1986) (standard of appellate review for post-conviction relief rulings)