${site.data.firmName}${SEMFirmNameAlt}
Call today: 305-442-0200
Request information by email

Supreme Court Sides with Defendant Who Was Given Incorrect Information

A new Supreme court case gives hope for prisoners and individuals convicted of crimes where they have received incorrect information in some instances - In Lee v. United States 582 US ___ (2017) the court held that:

When a defendant claims that his counsel's deficient performance deprived him of a trial by causing him to accept a plea, the defendant can show prejudice 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." Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U. S. 52.

In this case, Lee moved to the U.S. from South Korea with his parents when he was 13. For 35 years he never returned to South Korea, nor did he become a U.S. citizen. He is a lawful permanent resident. In 2008, Lee admitted possessing ecstasy with intent to distribute. His attorney repeatedly assured him that he would not be deported as a result of pleading guilty. Lee accepted a plea and was sentenced to a year and a day in prison. His conviction was an "aggravated felony," 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(B), so he was subject to mandatory deportation. When Lee learned of this consequence, he moved to vacate his conviction, arguing that his attorney had provided constitutionally ineffective assistance. Lee and his plea-stage counsel testified that "deportation was the determinative issue" in Lee's decision to accept a plea. Lee's counsel acknowledged that although Lee's defense was weak, if he had known Lee would be deported upon pleading guilty, he would have advised him to go to trial. The Sixth Circuit affirmed denial of relief.

However, The Supreme Court reversed, stating that Lee established that he was prejudiced by erroneous advice, demonstrating a "reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial." The Court stated that the inquiry demands a "case-by-case examination." A defendant's decision-making may not turn solely on the likelihood of conviction after trial. When the inquiry is focused on what an individual defendant would have done, the possibility of even a highly improbable result may be pertinent to the extent it would have affected the defendant's decision-making. The Court reasoned that it could not say that it would be irrational for someone in Lee's position to risk additional prison time in exchange for holding on to some chance of avoiding deportation.

If you are an individual in a similar situation or if you have a relative or friend in such a situation, it is wise to investigate this further with an attorney who handles post-conviction attacks, whether it be State or Federal.

No Comments

Leave a comment
Comment Information
Location Map Image

Contact & Appointments

Spatz Law Firm, PL
14707 S Dixie Hwy
Suite 302
Miami, FL 33176

Phone: 305-442-0200
Fax: 305-253-0979
Map & Directions