People v. Robinson
974 N.E. 2d 978, 2012 IL App (4th) 101048 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defense attorney is not ineffective for refusing a client’s directive to make a counteroffer during plea negotiations, as making such a counteroffer would legally reject the prosecutor's existing offer, and tactical negotiation decisions are within counsel's strategic control.
Facts:
- Illinois State Police stopped a vehicle in which Alfred D. Robinson was a passenger for speeding and swerving.
- During the stop, a police search of the vehicle uncovered 249.9 grams of cocaine and 2.6 grams of cannabis.
- While Robinson was facing drug charges, the State, through his attorney Terry Dodds, offered a plea deal for an eight-year prison sentence.
- Robinson instructed Dodds to first propose a counteroffer of seven years, and if the State rejected it, to then accept the original eight-year offer.
- Dodds refused to present the counteroffer, believing it would legally reject and terminate the State's existing eight-year offer.
- The State later withdrew its eight-year plea offer, and no plea agreement was reached.
Procedural Posture:
- The State charged Alfred D. Robinson with multiple drug offenses in the Circuit Court of McLean County, a state trial court.
- Following a trial, a jury found Robinson guilty on all charges, and the trial court sentenced him to 12 years in prison.
- Robinson directly appealed his conviction, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel, but the Illinois Appellate Court (intermediate appellate court) affirmed the conviction.
- Robinson then filed a pro se post-conviction petition in the trial court, again claiming his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to communicate his acceptance of a plea offer.
- The trial court advanced the petition to the second stage of post-conviction proceedings and appointed counsel.
- The State filed a motion to dismiss the post-conviction petition, which the trial court granted.
- Robinson, as appellant, appealed the trial court's dismissal of his post-conviction petition to the Illinois Appellate Court, with the People of the State of Illinois as appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a defense attorney provide ineffective assistance of counsel by refusing a defendant's directive to present a counteroffer to the State during plea negotiations, where making the counteroffer would legally operate as a rejection of the State's existing offer?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Steigmann
No, a defense attorney does not provide ineffective assistance of counsel by refusing a defendant's directive to present a counteroffer. A criminal defendant's role in plea negotiations is limited to the ultimate decision of whether to accept or reject a final plea agreement reached by counsel and the prosecutor. The court reasoned that plea negotiations are governed by traditional principles of contract law, under which a counteroffer operates as a rejection of the original offer. A rejected offer cannot be revived by a later acceptance. Therefore, counsel's refusal to make a counteroffer that would extinguish a standing plea offer is a matter of trial strategy and sound judgment, not deficient performance. The court distinguished the five decisions personal to a defendant (pleading guilty, waiving a jury, testifying, appealing, and requesting lesser-included instructions) from strategic decisions, like the tactics of negotiation, which are reserved for counsel.
Concurring - Justice Cook
Yes, I concur with the judgment to affirm, but I disagree with the majority's characterization that a defendant's role is strictly limited to a final up-or-down vote on a plea deal. While the defendant is not entitled to direct every step of the negotiation process, an attorney has a duty to consult with the client regarding tactics and strategy. The relationship should involve consultation, and the defendant has 'some say in the matter,' even if the ultimate strategic decisions rest with counsel. The majority's framing of the defendant's role as purely passive until the final decision is too restrictive.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the division of authority between a defense attorney and their client during plea negotiations, clearly placing tactical decisions within the attorney's purview. It reinforces the application of contract law principles to plea bargaining, specifically the rule that a counteroffer constitutes a rejection. This precedent provides defense counsel with protection from ineffective assistance claims when they exercise professional judgment to preserve a favorable plea offer, even against a client's specific instructions to make a counteroffer. Future cases will likely use this ruling to define the boundaries of reasonable legal strategy in plea negotiations.
