Lee v. United States
137 S.Ct. 1958, 198 L.Ed.2d 476 (2017)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To establish prejudice from ineffective assistance of counsel regarding a guilty plea, a defendant must show a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, they would have rejected the plea and insisted on going to trial. This standard can be met even when the defendant has no viable defense, if a collateral consequence like deportation was the determinative factor in their decision-making.
Facts:
- Jae Lee, a lawful permanent resident, moved to the United States from South Korea at age 13 and lived in the country for 35 years, establishing two successful restaurants in Tennessee.
- Lee had no remaining ties to South Korea and his elderly parents, who were naturalized U.S. citizens, depended on him for care.
- In 2008, a search of Lee's home revealed ecstasy pills, cash, and a firearm, leading to his federal indictment for possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute.
- During plea negotiations, Lee's primary concern was avoiding deportation, and he repeatedly asked his attorney if a guilty plea would result in his removal from the United States.
- Lee's attorney incorrectly and repeatedly assured him that he would not be deported as a consequence of pleading guilty.
- Relying on this erroneous assurance, Lee accepted a plea agreement and was sentenced to a year and a day in prison.
- The offense to which Lee pleaded guilty was an aggravated felony under immigration law, which subjected him to mandatory deportation.
Procedural Posture:
- Jae Lee filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee (trial court) to vacate his conviction and sentence.
- Following an evidentiary hearing, a Magistrate Judge recommended granting Lee's motion.
- The District Court judge rejected the recommendation and denied Lee's motion, concluding that Lee could not establish prejudice because of the overwhelming evidence of his guilt.
- Lee, the appellant, appealed the District Court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (intermediate appellate court).
- The Sixth Circuit affirmed the District Court's ruling, holding that no rational defendant would proceed to trial rather than accept a plea with a shorter sentence when facing overwhelming evidence.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted Lee's petition for a writ of certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a defendant demonstrate a reasonable probability of prejudice from ineffective assistance of counsel by showing that, but for their attorney's erroneous advice that a guilty plea would not lead to deportation, they would have rejected the plea and insisted on going to trial, even when the evidence of guilt was overwhelming and a conviction at trial was almost certain?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Roberts
Yes. A defendant can demonstrate prejudice by showing a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's erroneous advice, they would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on trial, even if the chances of acquittal were grim. The prejudice inquiry focuses on the defendant's loss of the right to a judicial proceeding, not on the likely outcome of that proceeding. Applying the test from Hill v. Lockhart, the Court found that when a particular consequence, such as deportation, is the 'determinative issue' for a defendant, the choice to reject a plea that guarantees that consequence in favor of a small chance of avoiding it at trial is not irrational. For Lee, who had lived in the U.S. for 35 years, the difference between the certainty of deportation from a plea and the near certainty of deportation from a trial was significant enough to potentially alter his decision. The Court emphasized that contemporaneous evidence, such as Lee's repeated questions to his attorney and his hesitation at the plea colloquy, substantiated his claim that avoiding deportation was paramount, thus satisfying the prejudice prong of the Strickland test.
Dissenting - Justice Thomas
No. To establish prejudice under Strickland, a defendant must show a reasonable probability that the ultimate result of the criminal proceeding would have been more favorable, not merely that they would have chosen a different procedural path. The majority improperly decouples the prejudice analysis from the case's ultimate outcome. Given the overwhelming evidence of guilt, Lee had no viable defense and would have been convicted and deported had he gone to trial, likely after receiving a longer prison sentence. Therefore, his counsel's error had no adverse effect on the judgment. The dissent argues that allowing a defendant to vacate a plea based on a desire to pursue a 'Hail Mary' at trial contradicts Strickland's instruction to exclude 'the luck of a lawless decisionmaker' from the prejudice analysis and undermines the finality of guilty pleas.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the prejudice prong of the Strickland test in the context of guilty pleas involving non-citizen defendants. It establishes that the analysis is not limited to the objective probability of success at trial but must also account for the defendant's specific, documented priorities. By focusing on whether counsel's error deprived the defendant of the choice to proceed to trial, the ruling empowers defendants for whom a collateral consequence like deportation is more severe than a longer prison sentence. This holding makes it easier for defendants with overwhelming evidence against them to vacate pleas based on erroneous advice about such critical collateral consequences, shifting the focus from the outcome of a hypothetical trial to the integrity of the defendant's decision-making process.
Unlock the full brief for Lee v. United States