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
- 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.
- 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.