Supreme Court of the United States · 2017 · Criminal Procedure
Criminal ProcedureIneffective Assistance of CounselGuilty PleasDeportation ConsequencesSixth Amendmentineffective assistanceStricklandHill v. Lockhart
Facts
Lee, a lawful permanent resident who had lived in the United States for decades, was charged with possessing ecstasy with intent to distribute. He repeatedly asked his attorney whether pleading guilty would lead to deportation, and his attorney incorrectly assured him that it would not. Lee pleaded guilty and received a sentence of a year and a day, but the conviction qualified as an aggravated felony that made deportation mandatory. At an evidentiary hearing, both Lee and his attorney testified that deportation was the determinative issue in Lee's plea decision and that Lee would have gone to trial had he known the true immigration consequence.
Issue
When counsel gives constitutionally deficient advice that a guilty plea will not result in deportation, can a defendant show Strickland prejudice even if he had no viable defense and would likely have been convicted at trial? More specifically, is it enough to show a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's error, he would have rejected the plea and insisted on trial?
Rule
When a defendant claims that deficient plea-stage advice caused him to plead guilty rather than go to trial, prejudice is shown by demonstrating a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial. This inquiry is case specific and focuses on the defendant's decisionmaking, not on any per se rule that a defendant with no viable defense can never establish prejudice.
🔒
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
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
In Phoenix, Mateo Rios, a lawful permanent resident, was charged with drug distribution. His lawyer incorrectly told him that pleading guilty would have no immigration consequences, and Mateo accepted a plea reducing his likely prison exposure from about 8 years after trial to 7 years under the agreement. Mateo had repeatedly told counsel that staying in the United States mattered more to him than any sentence difference because all of his close family lived in Arizona and he had no ties to Peru.
If Mateo later seeks to vacate the plea based on ineffective assistance, which is the strongest argument that he can establish prejudice?
Explanation. The majority held that when deficient advice causes a defendant to plead guilty rather than go to trial, prejudice turns on whether there is a reasonable probability the defendant would have rejected the plea and insisted on trial. The inquiry focuses on the defendant's decisionmaking, not on a categorical rule that a defendant with no viable defense can never establish prejudice. Where deportation or another plea consequence is determinative and the difference in prison exposure is comparatively small, a defendant may establish prejudice even though conviction at trial was likely. (Derived from Lee v. United States (2017).)