48 Hours And Ineffective Assistance: Boots On The Ground And No Wings Of Pegasus

Can a defendant claim ineffective assistance of counsel who had secured an illegal benefit of a 48 hour release as part of a plea bargain?

In this case, counsel for a defendant successfully negotiated an unlawful forty-eight-hour release from custody as part of a plea bargain with the prosecution. The defendant absconded but has now been returned to custody. The defendant now claims ineffective assistance of counsel because the plea bargain contained an unlawful term which the prosecution honored and he abused. 

No, according to the Iowa Supreme Court in the circumstances presented

But there is a legal issue in this case. Gordon received everything that he bargained for in the plea agreement and the State did not breach any term of the plea agreement. Further, it was Gordon, and not the State, that breached a term of the plea agreement. And, finally, the illegal term in the plea agreement was procured by Gordon and for his benefit, not the State’s. A narrow question of law arises in this case: whether Gordon, as  a matter of law, is precluded from seeking to challenge the effectiveness of his lawyer where the plea bargain, which Gordon instigated, provided him with a better deal than the law allows and which he subsequently breached after benefiting from the illegal term.

The parties have not cited authority directly on point. But we have found substantial authority for the proposition that a criminal defendant who enters a plea agreement with an illegally lenient sentence cannot benefit from that sentence and then attack the plea bargain.

Holding

We conclude under the unique facts presented that Gordon is not entitled to bring an action alleging ineffective assistance of counsel in connection with the plea-bargaining process. His trial counsel achieved a result more beneficial than the law allows, and Gordon took full advantage of the extra benefit. Gordon received an extra benefit, although an illegal one. Gordon’s problem is not an unlawfully lenient plea bargain, procured by ineffective assistance of counsel, but is instead his own action in absconding. He now is in a new pack of trouble, but that is Gordon’s own doing. As a result, we do not think Gordon can show the kind of prejudice required to support an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim.

We emphasize that in this case, we do not fly on the wings of Pegasus surveying the broad field of the many potential consequences of a wide variety of illegal plea bargains. Instead, we have boots on the ground and firmly anchor our decision on the unusual facts and claims presented in this appeal before us. As such, in this particular case, we conclude as a matter of law that Gordon is not entitled to relief from his plea bargain based on his claim that his counsel achieved more for his benefit than the law allows.

Links to the briefs here. (Mike Frisch)