LAFLER V. COOPER: SCOTUS CASE

According to http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/lafler-v-cooper/ the case Lafler v. Cooper is about When a criminal defendant turns down a plea offer based on seriously deficient advice from his lawyer, and then receives a harsher sentence after being convicted by a jury after a fair trial, can the defendant later seek to overturn his sentence on the ground that his counsel was unconstitutionally deficient in advising him to reject the more generous plea offer? If so, what is the proper remedy for ineffective assistance of counsel in that situation?

According to http://www.americancriminallawreview.com/Drupal/blogs/blog-entry/lafler-v-cooper-attorney-mistakes-plea-bargaining-and-remedies-09-25-2011 the way this case came about is Among other charges, the respondent, Anthony Cooper, was charged with Assault with Intent to Murder for shooting Kali Mundy and inflicting life-threatening injuries. Although Cooper had aimed the gun at Mundy’s head, the bullets ended up hitting her in the buttocks and thighs. After the preliminary hearings, the prosecutor communicated an initial plea offer to Cooper’s attorney that allowed Cooper to plead guilty to assault with intent to murder and face a minimum sentence of 51 to 85 years imprisonment. 

Cooper testified that he wanted to plead guilty but that his attorney advised him not to take the deal. Cooper’s attorney informed him that because the victim was shot below the waist, the government could not prove an assault with intent to commit murder charge. The prosecutor later offered a second plea deal of a minimum sentence of 126 to 210 months but Cooper again rejected the plea based on his attorney’s advice. The case went to trial and the jury found Cooper guilty on all crimes charged. He was sentenced to 185 to 360 months of imprisonment.

Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

This goes with is case because this amendment shows that a person on trial has the rite to have a say so in his or her case no matter what even if there is a error and has the rite to speak up. So because a attorney does not make the right decision he or she has the rite to speak up and say he or she objects.