Wayne Hare v. United States, 688 F.3d 878

Hare pled guilty to a meth distribution conspiracy and was sentenced to 292 months in prison.
Hare later learned his counsel failed to inform him of a pre-trial plea offer with a shorter potential sentence.
He previously challenged his conviction and sentence under 28 U.S.C. §2255 and did not obtain relief; he now seeks permission to file a successive §2255(h) collateral attack.
Hare relies on Missouri v. Frye (2012) to argue there was a new rule requiring relief, due to uncommunicated plea offers.
The court holds Frye did not announce a new constitutional rule and thus cannot support a successive §2255(h) petition.
The court also holds Hare is procedurally barred and time-barred from pursuing a new §2255 petition, with no applicable exception.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Frye creates a new rule for successive petitions	Hare argues Frye established a new rule benefiting ineffective-assistance claims.	Frye applied an existing Strickland framework and did not announce a new rule.	Frye not a new rule; no basis for successive petition.
Whether Hare can pursue a successive §2255(h) petition despite prior denial	Newly discovered information about the uncommunicated offer might permit relief.	Rule establishes one round of collateral review; the rule existed at first petition.	Not authorized; §2255(h) denied.
Whether remand for factual development on the uncommunicated plea offer is warranted	Further development could affect the viability of the claim.	Procedural bar and finality concerns prevent relief.	Remand not required; petition is time-barred and procedurally barred.

Missouri v. Frye, 132 S. Ct. 1399 (2012) (uncommunicated plea offers and Strickland applied to plea negotiations)
Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (plea bargaining and effectiveness standard under Strickland)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (ineffective assistance standard for constitutional claims)
In re Perez, 682 F.3d 930 (11th Cir. 2012) (Frye did not announce new rule for successive petitions)
Cooper v. Lafler, 132 S. Ct. 1376 (2012) (context of plea negotiations and established rules in Frye)
Johnson v. Duckworth, 793 F.2d 898 (7th Cir. 1986) (recognition of right to effective assistance in plea negotiations)
Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989) (retroactivity framework and collateral reviews)
Gallo-Vasquez v. United States, 402 F.3d 793 (7th Cir. 2005) (faulty advice about plea offers may satisfy Strickland)
Paters v. United States, 159 F.3d 1043 (7th Cir. 1998) (recognizing right to effective assistance in plea negotiations)
Nunez v. United States, 96 F.3d 990 (7th Cir. 1996) (authorization requirement for successive petitions)