ARAVE, WARDEN v. HOFFMAN

552US1 Unit: $$U8 [08-07-09 12:35:28] PAGES PGT: OPIN
117 OCTOBER TERM, 2007
Per Curiam
ARAVE, WARDEN v. HOFFMAN
certiorari to the united states court of appeals for
the ninth circuit
No. 07–110. Decided January 7, 2008
Respondent was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death
in state court. Finding that he had received ineffective assistance of
counsel during his trial’s sentencing phase but not during plea bargain
ing, the Federal District Court subsequently granted habeas relief, or
dering that he be resentenced. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the judg
ment with respect to sentencing and reversed with respect to plea
bargaining.
Held: Respondent’s motion to vacate and dismiss as moot the Ninth Cir
cuit’s judgment, to the extent it addressed his plea bargaining claim, is
granted. He wishes to abandon that claim so that he may proceed with
the resentencing ordered by the District Court. The Ninth Circuit is
directed to instruct the District Court to dismiss the relevant claim
with prejudice.
Motion granted; 455 F. 3d 926, vacated in part and remanded.
Per Curiam.
Respondent Maxwell Hoffman was convicted of first
degree murder and sentenced to death. See State v. Hoff
man, 123 Idaho 638, 851 P. 2d 934 (1993). Hoffman sought
federal habeas relief on the grounds that, inter alia, his
counsel had been ineffective during both pretrial plea bar
gaining and the sentencing phase of his trial. The District
Court, finding that Hoffman had received ineffective assist
ance of counsel during sentencing but not during plea bar
gaining, granted Hoffman’s federal habeas petition in part
and ordered the State of Idaho to resentence him. Civ. Ac
tion No. 94–0200–S–BLW (Mar. 30, 2002), App. to Pet. for
Cert. 38, 65. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
affirmed the District Court’s decision regarding ineffective

552US1 Unit: $$U8 [08-07-09 12:35:28] PAGES PGT: OPIN
118 ARAVE v. HOFFMAN
Per Curiam
assistance of counsel during sentencing,* but reversed with
respect to the ineffective-assistance claim during plea negoti
ations. 455 F. 3d 926, 942 (2006). The Ninth Circuit thus
granted the writ, ordering the District Court to direct the
State either to release Hoffman or to “offe[r] [him] a plea
agreement with the ‘same material terms’ offered in the
original plea agreement.” Id., at 943. The State sought,
and we granted, certiorari. Post, p. 1008.
Hoffman now abandons his claim that counsel was ineffec
tive during plea bargaining. See Respondent’s Motion to
Vacate Decision Below and Dismiss the Cause as Moot. He
“no longer seeks or desires the relief ordered by the Court of
Appeals with respect to the plea offer.” Id., at 3. Rather,
Hoffman now “wishes to withdraw his claim of ineffective
assistance of counsel in connection with plea bargaining” and
asks this Court to dismiss his appeal with prejudice on that
issue so that he may proceed with the resentencing ordered
by the District Court. Ibid.
The State, in its response, notes that Hoffman’s requested
relief is “virtually identical to the request made by the state
in its Petition for Certiorari.” Response to Respondent’s
Motion to Vacate Decision Below and Dismiss the Cause as
Moot, p. 3. The State therefore agrees that the instant mo
tion to vacate and dismiss with prejudice moots Hoffman’s
claim of ineffective assistance of counsel during plea negotia
tions and asks that the motion be granted.
We grant respondent’s motion. Because his claim for inef
fective assistance of counsel during pretrial plea bargaining
is moot, we vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals to
the extent that it addressed that claim. The case is re
manded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
*The State initially cross-appealed the District Court’s grant of Hoff
man’s habeas petition for ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing.
The State, however, subsequently withdrew that cross-appeal, leaving in
place the District Court’s order granting habeas relief as to Hoffman’s
death sentence. 455 F. 3d 926, 931 (CA9 2006).

552US1 Unit: $$U8 [08-07-09 12:35:28] PAGES PGT: OPIN
119 Cite as: 552 U. S. 117 (2008)
Per Curiam
Circuit with directions that it instruct the United States Dis
trict Court for the District of Idaho to dismiss the relevant
claim with prejudice. Deakins v. Monaghan, 484 U. S. 193,
200–201 (1988); United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U. S.
36, 39–40 (1950).
It is so ordered.