CASE 0:22-cv-01331-ECT-DJF Doc. 20 Filed 01/09/24 Page 1 of 3
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
`
`
`
`Jamil Joshua Eason,
`
`
`Petitioner,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`Commissioner Paul Schnell,
`
`
`
`Respondent.
`
`________________________________________________________________________
`
`
`
`
`File No. 22-cv-1331 (ECT/DJF)
`
`
`
`
`ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT
`AND RECOMMENDATION
`
`Petitioner Jamil Joshua Eason commenced this action by filing a petition for a writ
`
`of habeas corpus. ECF No. 1. The case is before the Court on a Report and
`
`Recommendation [ECF No. 16] issued by Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster. Magistrate
`
`Judge Foster recommends denying Eason’s petition. R. & R. at 15. Mr. Eason filed
`
`objections to the Report and Recommendation. ECF No. 17. Because Mr. Eason has
`
`objected the Court is required to review the Report and Recommendation de novo pursuant
`
`to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 72.2(b)(3).
`
`The Court has undertaken that de novo review and concludes that Magistrate Judge
`
`Foster’s analysis and conclusions are correct. Mr. Eason’s objections warrant additional
`
`comment in one particular respect. Magistrate Judge Foster concluded that a reasonable
`
`interpretation of Missouri v. Frye’s “admonition against allowing an offer to expire
`
`‘without advising the defendant’ is that defense counsel must ‘advise’ the defendant of the
`
`existence of the plea offer and its terms—the core question at issue in that case.” R. & R.
`
`at 10 (citing Missouri v. Frye, 566 U.S. 134 (2012)). In doing so, Magistrate Judge Foster
`
`

`

`CASE 0:22-cv-01331-ECT-DJF Doc. 20 Filed 01/09/24 Page 2 of 3
`
`cited one definition of “advise” from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Id. (citing Advise,
`
`Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/advise (providing as one
`
`definition of “advise”: “to give information or notice to”) (accessed on June 7, 2023)). In
`
`his objections, Mr. Eason quotes a different Merriam-Webster definition of “advise”: “to
`
`give (someone) a recommendation about what should be done.” ECF No. 17 at 10. He
`
`argues that Magistrate Judge Foster ignored this second definition. I understand Magistrate
`
`Judge Foster’s citation to the first definition to be illustrative of the Minnesota Supreme
`
`Court’s interpretation of Frye. See Eason v. State, 950 N.W.2d 258, 267–71 (Minn.
`
`2020). In other words, that another definition exists does not answer whether the
`
`Minnesota Supreme Court’s decision is contrary to or an unreasonable application of
`
`Strickland or Frye. As the Minnesota Supreme Court explained:
`
`The record here shows that Eason’s counsel thoroughly
`discussed the implications and consequences of the original
`plea offer with Eason. The final offer for a fixed number of
`months under the same terms as the State’s initial offer—made
`in Eason’s presence—contained no nuance to further explain.
`This offer came after Eason had already rejected a more
`favorable plea bargain with that same number as the high
`range, and had asked his counsel to negotiate a range with a
`lower bottom number. As defense counsel testified at the
`postconviction hearing, “You know, he—we rejected the 420
`to 480, maybe we thought that he would reject the 480 and
`without discussion.”
`
`Under these circumstances, where Eason knew of both plea
`offers, was thoroughly counseled about the first offer and
`rejected it, and defense counsel continued to zealously
`advocate for him to receive that potentially better offer, the
`district court correctly concluded that Eason failed to meet his
`burden of showing that his attorneys’ conduct fell below an
`objective standard of reasonableness.
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`CASE 0:22-cv-01331-ECT-DJF Doc. 20 Filed 01/09/24 Page 3 of 3
`
`Id. at 270–71. On different facts, more might be required to meet Strickland and Frye. The
`
`Minnesota Supreme Court’s understanding and application of Strickland and Frye to this
`
`case’s facts was neither contrary to these cases nor unreasonable in some respect.
`
`Therefore, based on all the files, records, and proceedings in the above-captioned
`
`matters, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
`
`1.
`
`The Objections to the Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 17] are
`
`OVERRULED;
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 16] is ACCEPTED in full;
`
`Petitioner Jamil Joshua Eason’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus [ECF
`
`No. 1] is DENIED;
`
`4.
`
`This matter is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
`
`LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
`
`
`
`
`Dated: January 9, 2024
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`s/ Eric C. Tostrud
`Eric C. Tostrud
`United States District Court
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`