Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Related to a Plea

As noted in other articles in this website, criminal defendants are guaranteed the effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. [1] Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel require the petitioner to prove both that trial counsel performed deficiently and resulting prejudice from counsel’s deficient performance. [2] Where the conviction resulted from a trial, prejudice would mean that, but for trial counsel’s deficient performance, there is a reasonable probability that the result of the trial would have been different. [3]

But what about pleas? What is the standard where the underlying conviction resulted from a plea?

Prejudice is generally outcome-focused. Thus, where an attorney’s deficient performance resulted in the defendant entering a plea, defendants must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for trial counsel’s errors, he or she would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on proceeding to trial. [4] These issues generally turn on the type of error. For instance, if an attorney failed to investigate or discover exonerating evidence, the determination of whether counsel’s failures prejudiced the defendant will depend on the likelihood that the discovery of the evidence would have led counsel to change the recommendation to enter a plea and whether such evidence would have likely changed the outcome of a trial. [5] Where counsel’s failure was not advising the defendant of an affirmative defense (like suppression of evidence, self-defense, etc.), the question of prejudice turns on whether the affirmative defense would have been likely to succeed. [6]

As a related concept, the guarantee of the effective assistance of counsel also applies to plea-bargaining. [7] Deficient performance in the plea-bargaining context is case-specific. The only act that categorically constitutes deficient performance is counsel’s failure to inform the client of a plea offer. [8] Prejudice requires a showing that, but for trial counsel’s deficient performance, the defendant would have accepted the plea offer, the prosecution would not have withdrawn it, the court would have accepted the plea, and the conviction and sentence under the offer’s terms would have been less severe than under the judgment and sentence which was imposed. [9]

For federal prisoners, an ineffective assistance of counsel claim may be brought in a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct a sentence filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. For Alabama prisoners, such claims may be made under a Rule 32 petition for relief from conviction or sentence.

If you or someone you love suffered from the ineffective assistance of counsel in the criminal process, contact Peter Armstrong, Attorney at Law, for a free consultation.

Citations:

1.    Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 686 (1984).

2.    Id. at 687.

3.    Id. at 694.

4.    Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59 (1985).

5.    Id.

6.    Id.

7.    Padilla v. Ky., 559 U.S. 356, 364 (2010).

8.    Mo. v. Frye, 566 U.S. 134, 145-46 (2013).

9.    Osley v. U.S., 751 F.3d 1214, 1222 (11th Cir. 2014) (citing Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156, 164-65 (2012)).