Missouri v. Frye

Background

Galin Frye was charged with driving with a revoked license and, because of prior convictions, faced a felony with up to four years in prison. On November 15 the prosecutor sent Frye’s lawyer a written letter offering two plea options that would expire on December 28: a guilty plea to the felony with a 3-year recommendation (including 10 days "shock" jail) or a reduction to a misdemeanor with a 90-day recommendation. Frye’s lawyer did not tell him about the offers; Frye was arrested again December 30, pleaded guilty without a deal on January 4, and received three years in prison. He later said he would have taken the misdemeanor offer if told.

Reasoning

The Court held that the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of effective counsel extends to plea offers that lapse or are rejected. The Court said defense lawyers have a general duty to communicate formal plea offers to clients. To show constitutional prejudice when an offer was not communicated, a defendant must prove a reasonable probability they would have accepted the earlier offer and that the plea would have been entered without the prosecution withdrawing it or a judge refusing to accept it. The Court applied these standards and found counsel’s performance deficient but remanded because the Missouri court had not considered whether the prosecution or trial judge would have honored the earlier offer under state law.

Real world impact

The decision puts responsibility on defense lawyers to promptly tell defendants about formal written offers, gives defendants a route to challenge convictions lost through uncommunicated deals, and requires courts to consider whether prosecutors or judges would have honored those offers. The ruling is not always a final win for a defendant because state rules about withdrawing or accepting pleas can prevent relief; the case was sent back to Missouri courts to sort out those state-law questions.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Scalia, joined by the Chief Justice, Justice Thomas, and Justice Alito, dissented, arguing the Constitution should not be extended to police plea bargaining and that Frye’s voluntary guilty plea was not tainted by counsel’s earlier omission.