State v. Rose, 406 P.3d 443

In 2003 a jury convicted Robert Lysle Rose of aggravated kidnapping, assault with a weapon, and assault on a peace officer; he was sentenced to an effective 100-year term with 20 years suspended.
In pretrial negotiations the Ravalli County Attorney sent defense counsel a May 21, 2003 plea offer that would dismiss two felonies in exchange for plea to assault with a weapon (felony) and assault (misdemeanor) and a PFO-related consecutive term; counsel believed a PFO term as separately stated was illegal and did not convey the offer to Rose.
Rose challenged counsel’s failure to communicate the offer as ineffective assistance; the Montana Supreme Court previously held the plea terms were illegal and denied relief, but the federal district court granted habeas relief, concluding counsel’s failure was prejudicial and ordered the State to reoffer equivalent plea terms.
The State reoffered the plea in 2016; Rose executed a plea agreement and apologized at a change-of-plea hearing, but the District Court (on remand) rejected the reoffered plea under Lafler v. Cooper because Rose had been unwilling in 2003 to accept responsibility.
Rose appealed the District Court’s refusal to accept the reoffered plea and its denial of his request to withdraw the 2016 plea; the Montana Supreme Court affirmed, holding the trial court did not abuse its discretion and that permitting withdrawal would conflict with Lafler.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the District Court abused its discretion by rejecting the reoffered plea	Rose: federal court already found he would have accepted the original plea, so the trial court lacked basis to reject the reoffer	State: Lafler permits the trial court to exercise discretion and consider Rose’s 2003 unwillingness to accept responsibility	No abuse of discretion — trial court properly applied Lafler factors and relied on record evidence that Rose would not have accepted the original offer
Whether Rose should be allowed to withdraw his 2016 guilty plea after the court rejected the reoffered plea	Rose: § 46-12-211(4), MCA entitles a defendant to withdraw a plea if court rejects the agreement	State: withdrawal after a full trial would contravene Lafler and federal habeas remedy; statute applies pre-trial only	Court did not err — withdrawal not required and would conflict with Lafler remedy

Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (2012) (remedy for rejected plea may include requiring prosecution to reoffer plea and trial court then exercises discretion to accept or leave conviction)
Missouri v. Frye, 566 U.S. 134 (2012) (counsel has duty to communicate formal plea offers; prejudice requires showing defendant would have accepted the offer)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-part ineffective-assistance test: deficient performance and prejudice)
Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000) (standards for federal habeas review under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d))
Nunes v. Mueller, 350 F.3d 1045 (9th Cir. 2003) (court may order reoffering of plea to cure constitutional error rather than release)