RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 19a0258p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT CURTIS JEROME BYRD, ┐ Petitioner-Appellant, │ │ > No. 18-2021 v. │ │ │ GREG SKIPPER, Warden, │ Respondent-Appellee. │ ┘ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit. No. 2:15-cv-13528—Laurie J. Michelson, District Judge. Argued: May 1, 2019 Decided and Filed: October 8, 2019 Before: DAUGHTREY, COOK, and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges _________________ COUNSEL ARGUED: Elizabeth L. Jacobs, Detroit, Michigan, for Appellant. Ann M. Sherman, OFFICE OF THE MICHIGAN ATTORNEY GENERAL, Lansing, Michigan, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Elizabeth L. Jacobs, Detroit, Michigan, for Appellant. Ann M. Sherman, OFFICE OF THE MICHIGAN ATTORNEY GENERAL, Lansing, Michigan, for Appellee. DAUGHTREY, J., delivered the opinion of the court in which COOK, J., joined. GRIFFIN, J. (pp. 16–29), delivered a separate dissenting opinion. No. 18-2021 Byrd v. Skipper Page 2 _________________ OPINION _________________ MARTHA CRAIG DAUGHTREY, Circuit Judge. Petitioner Curtis Byrd seeks a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Byrd is serving life in prison without the possibility of parole for aiding and abetting a first-degree felony murder, despite the fact that the prosecutor in his case was interested in—and, indeed, would have preferred—negotiating an agreement that could have allowed Byrd to plead guilty to a lesser charge and receive a lighter sentence. Byrd argues that his counsel’s ineffectiveness deprived him of the opportunity to secure a plea deal. Specifically, he alleges that, based on an egregious misunderstanding of the law, his attorney conveyed to the prosecutor an unwillingness to consider a plea and conveyed to Byrd an assurance of acquittal—effectively halting plea negotiations before they could begin. We find that Byrd’s counsel was deficient and that it is reasonably probable that, absent this incompetency, Byrd would have negotiated a more favorable outcome. Accordingly, we conclude that Byrd was denied his Sixth Amendment right to effective counsel, reverse the judgment of the district court, and remand the case for entry of a writ of habeas corpus unless new state proceedings consistent with this opinion are reopened within 180 days of the issuance of our mandate in this matter. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In February 2010, Byrd and his then-girlfriend, Charletta Atkinson, attempted to rob Richard Joiner at a bank ATM. Byrd, who had no criminal record to that point, suggested the plan and provided the gun, but at the last minute had a change of heart. He told Atkinson, “I can’t do this. This is not for me, I’m not going to do it.” The record is unclear as to whether Atkinson took the gun or Byrd gave her the gun. It is clear, however, that, while armed, Atkinson approached Joiner and demanded that he hand over his money. Joiner resisted and, in a struggle with Atkinson, the gun went off. Joiner suffered a fatal wound to the head. Atkinson returned to the car and Byrd drove away. Later, the couple ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals