## Facts

- George Johnson, an Arkansas prisoner, faced renewed proceedings after his murder conviction was set aside, leading to plea negotiations.
- A deputy prosecutor offered to recommend a 21-year sentence concurrent with Johnson’s existing burglary and assault sentences in exchange for a guilty plea to accessory after a felony murder.
- When defense counsel later communicated Johnson’s acceptance, the prosecutor withdrew the offer, stating it was a mistake, and substituted an offer to recommend a 21-year sentence consecutive to the existing sentences.
- Johnson initially rejected the revised offer and proceeded toward trial; after a mistrial, he accepted the second offer.
- Johnson pled guilty under the second agreement, and the trial judge imposed a 21-year consecutive sentence.
- After exhausting state remedies, Johnson sought federal habeas relief; the district court denied relief, but the Eighth Circuit reversed on a constitutional “fairness” theory.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review whether due process required enforcement of the withdrawn offer.

## Issues

1. Whether a defendant’s acceptance of a prosecutor’s plea proposal, withdrawn before the plea is entered, creates a federal due process right to specific performance of the original offer.
2. Whether the withdrawal of the first offer renders a later guilty plea, entered on different terms, constitutionally involuntary or unintelligent.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Eighth Circuit.
- The Court held that acceptance of the initial plea proposal did not create a constitutional right to enforce it after the State withdrew it before any plea was entered.
- Because Johnson’s later guilty plea was entered with knowledge of the actual (second) terms and rested on no unfulfilled promise, it could not be collaterally attacked on due process grounds.
- The Court reinstated the denial of federal habeas relief.

## Legal Principles

- Due process review of guilty pleas centers on whether the plea was entered voluntarily and intelligently with fair notice of its consequences.
- A prosecutor’s breach of a promise in an executed plea agreement can violate due process because the plea rests on a false premise; that rationale does not apply to a withdrawn offer not embodied in a plea.
- A defendant has no federal constitutional right to specific enforcement of an unexecuted plea offer that the prosecution withdraws before the plea is entered, absent an effect on the voluntariness or intelligence of the later plea.
- Federal habeas relief is not available to police prosecutorial fairness in plea negotiations unless the challenged conduct resulted in an unconstitutional deprivation of liberty, such as an involuntary or unintelligent plea.

## Conclusion

The Court ruled that due process did not require the State to honor a withdrawn plea offer where the defendant ultimately entered a voluntary, intelligent guilty plea under a different agreement that was fully disclosed and performed.


Mabry v. Johnson, 467 U.S. 504 (1984)