## Facts

- Jae Lee, a lawful permanent resident, was charged with a federal drug offense after agents found drugs, cash, and a firearm during a search of his home.
- Lee admitted guilt and faced strong evidence supporting conviction at trial.
- Plea counsel advised Lee to accept a plea yielding a sentence of one year and one day and repeatedly assured him the conviction would not result in deportation.
- The offense actually qualified as an aggravated felony triggering mandatory removal under federal immigration law.
- After pleading guilty and learning deportation was mandatory, Lee moved to vacate his conviction under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel.
- At an evidentiary hearing, Lee and counsel testified that avoiding deportation was the determinative factor in Lee’s plea decision; counsel stated he would have recommended trial had he known deportation was automatic.

## Issues

1. In the guilty-plea context, whether a defendant can establish Strickland prejudice from erroneous immigration advice by showing a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s error, he would have rejected the plea and insisted on trial, even where the likelihood of acquittal was low.
2. Whether overwhelming evidence of guilt makes rejection of a favorable plea “irrational” as a matter of law, thereby foreclosing a prejudice finding.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Sixth Circuit and remanded.
- The Court held that Lee established Strickland prejudice because he showed a reasonable probability that, absent counsel’s mistaken advice about mandatory deportation, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial.
- The Court rejected a categorical approach that treats strong evidence of guilt as automatically defeating prejudice in plea-advice claims.

## Legal Principles

- Under Strickland v. Washington, ineffective assistance requires deficient performance and resulting prejudice.
- Under Hill v. Lockhart, prejudice in the plea setting is shown by a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, the defendant would have rejected the plea and insisted on trial.
- The prejudice inquiry is defendant-specific and considers how counsel’s error would have affected the defendant’s decisionmaking, not only the probability of success at trial.
- Severe collateral consequences, including mandatory deportation, may be central to a defendant’s plea decision; a choice to risk trial to preserve any chance of avoiding removal is not irrational as a matter of law.
- Overwhelming evidence of guilt does not categorically bar a finding of prejudice from incorrect plea advice.

## Conclusion

The Court held that a noncitizen defendant may satisfy Strickland prejudice by proving a reasonable probability that accurate advice about mandatory deportation would have led him to reject a plea and proceed to trial, even when conviction at trial was highly likely.


Lee v. United States, 582 U.S. 357 (2017)