PLEA-BARGAINING

Burt v. Titlow

Issues

Did the Sixth Circuit fail to give appropriate deference to the Michigan Court of Appeals under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996?
Is subjective testimony that a convicted defendant would have accepted a plea, but for ineffective-assistance-of-counsel, sufficient to show that the defendant would have in fact accepted the plea?
Does the Supreme Court’s holding in Lafler v. Cooper require a state court to resentence a defendant where the defendant has shown that he would have accepted a plea deal but for ineffective-assistance-of-counsel? Should the resentence itself serve as the remedy?

On August 12, 2000, police officers found Donald Rogers dead on his kitchen floor. Donald’s wife and niece had engaged in “burking,” a practice of inebriating a person with alcohol to the point of unconsciousness and then smothering the person to death. Donald’s niece, Vonlee Nicole Titlow (a transgender individual hereinafter referred to as a male), accepted a plea deal in exchange for testifying against Donald’s wife, but later withdrew from the plea. The prosecutor charged Titlow with murder rather than manslaughter, and a jury subsequently found Titlow guilty of second-degree murder. On appeal, Titlow argued that his trial attorney was ineffective for allowing Titlow to withdraw his plea. The Michigan State Court of Appeals rejected this argument and affirmed the trial court’s decision, and Titlow subsequently filed for habeas relief. The District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan denied Titlow’s petition, but the Sixth Circuit reversed and ordered the prosecutor to re-offer the plea, concluding that the state court based its decision on an unreasonable determination of the facts. In this case, the Supreme Court will consider (1) whether the Sixth Circuit gave appropriate deference to the Michigan state courts, (2) what type of evidence is required to show that a defendant would have accepted a plea deal but for ineffective-assistance-of-counsel, and (3) what state courts are required to do when such defendants succeed on their ineffective-assistance claims. This case will address issues regarding the integrity of the country’s plea-bargaining system, and the evidentiary standards defendants must meet to be successful on ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims.

top

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether the Sixth Circuit failed to give appropriate AEDPA deference to a Michigan state court by holding that defense counsel was constitutionally ineffective for allowing Respondent to maintain his claim of innocence.
Whether a convicted defendant’s subjective testimony that he would have accepted a plea but for ineffective assistance, is, standing alone, sufficient to demonstrate a reasonable probability that defendant would have accepted the plea.
Whether Lafler always requires a state trial court to resentence a defendant who shows a reasonable probability that he would have accepted a plea offer but for ineffective assistance, and to do so in such a way as to “remedy” the violation of the defendant’s constitutional right, or merely requires a re-offer of the plea.

top

Facts

Respondent Vonlee Titlow is a transgender male prisoner currently serving a twenty-to-forty year sentence. See Titlow v. Burt,680 F.3d 577, 582 (6th Cir.