Home › Case briefs › Criminal Procedure

Hill v. Lockhart

Supreme Court of the United States · 1985 · Criminal Procedure

Criminal ProcedureGuilty PleasIneffective Assistance of CounselHabeas CorpusStricklandguilty pleaineffective assistanceprejudice

Facts

Hill pleaded guilty in Arkansas to first-degree murder and theft under a plea agreement calling for concurrent sentences of 35 years and 10 years. More than two years later, he filed a federal habeas petition alleging that his attorney had told him he would be eligible for parole after serving one-third of his sentence. In fact, because he had a prior felony conviction, Arkansas treated him as a second offender who had to serve one-half of his sentence before parole eligibility. Hill asked for relief based on the claim that this erroneous advice rendered his guilty plea involuntary.

Issue

When a defendant challenges a guilty plea on the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel, does the Strickland two-part test apply? If so, did Hill allege sufficient prejudice from counsel's alleged misinformation about parole eligibility to warrant a hearing or habeas relief?

Rule

The two-part Strickland v. Washington test applies to challenges to guilty pleas based on ineffective assistance of counsel. In the guilty-plea context, the prejudice requirement means the defendant must show a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Phoenix, Daniel Ortiz pleaded guilty to burglary after his lawyer told him he would likely be transferred to a lower-security unit within six months. Daniel later filed a federal habeas petition alleging only that the advice was wrong and that his plea was therefore invalid.

Under the governing rule, what is the strongest reason Daniel's petition should fail?

Explanation. The majority held that Strickland applies to ineffective-assistance challenges to guilty pleas. In that setting, prejudice requires a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, the defendant would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial. Mere allegation of bad advice, without that plea-decision allegation, is insufficient.