ADVISING CLIENT

 

ERRONEOUS ADVICE ON SENTENCING OR COLLATERAL CONSEQUENCES THAT LEADS TO PLEA

 

 U.S. Court of Appeals Cases

 

2005: United States v. Kwan
407 F.3d 1005 (9th Cir. 2005).

Counsel found ineffective in writ of error coram nobis case for affirmatively representing to the defendant that his guilty plea to bank fraud would have no adverse immigration consequences. Although counsel’s initial advice that the risk of deportation was low was accurate, amendments to the law prior to sentencing required deportation if the defendant was sentenced to at least one year of confinement. Despite the change in law counsel never advised the defendant of the option to move to withdraw his plea and did not inform the judge (who sentenced the defendant to a year and a day) that a sentence only two days shorter would allow the resident alien to avoid deportation and remain with his family. Counsel’s conduct was deficient because “a lawyer must maintain competence by keeping abreast of changes in the law and its practice,” id. at 1016, and the ABA Standards for Criminal Justice require that counsel fully advise the defendant of deportation consequences if convicted. Prejudice was found because if counsel had adequately advised the defendant he would likely have withdrawn his guilty plea and he could have negotiated to avoid deportation. Remanded for a new sentence to one day less than a year.

 

2003: Moore v. Bryant
348 F.3d 238 (7th Cir. 2003)(affirming 237 F. Supp. 2d 955 (C.D. Ill. 2002))

Counsel was ineffective in murder case for giving erroneous advice on sentencing to the defendant prior to entry of his guilty plea. The defendant was fifteen years old and charged as an adult with first degree murder. Although the defendant maintained his innocence, counsel recommended that the defendant enter a plea in order to receive a recommendation of a 20 year sentence, which was the minium allowed. Counsel informed the defendant that if he plead guilty he would only be required to serve fifty percent of the 20 year sentence, but that if he went to trial he would be given a higher sentence and would be subject to the new state statute that would require that the defendant serve at least 85 percent of his sentence. Although the defendant was very reluctant he followed counsel’s advice. Counsel’s advice was wrong because the new statute did not become effective until after the defendant’s trial and did not apply retroactively. Counsel’s conduct was deficient because "[a] reasonably competent counsel will attempt to learn all of the facts of the case, make an estimate of a likely sentence, and communicate the results of that analysis before allowing his client to plead guilty." Here, counsel recognized that his understanding of the statute might be incorrect, but he did not review the statute or case law to research the issue. Prejudice was found because the defendant, while maintaining innocence throughout, plead guilty solely because of counsel’s advice that he would only have to serve 10 years as opposed to 22 to 27 years if he went to trial and was found guilty. The state court’s decision was rejected under AEDPA for two reasons. First, the state court’s reliance on the adequacy of the plea judge’s colloquy was irrelevant to the underlying question of counsel’s effectiveness and, thus, was an unreasonable application of Strickland. Second, the state court’s finding that the record did not show that the defendant relied on counsel’s bad advice contradicted the testimony of the defendant and his counsel and, thus, was an unreasonable application of the facts to the law.

2002: United States v. Couto
311 F.3d 179 (2nd Cir. 2002)

Counsel ineffective in charge of bribing a public official plea case for affirmatively misrepresenting the deportation consequences of guilty plea. The defendant was charged with attempting to bribe an INS Agent in order to secure a green card. Although a guilty plea meant virtually automatic and unavoidable deportation, counsel advised the defendant that there were things that could be done to prevent her from being deported if she entered a guilty plea to a felony, including asking the judge for a letter recommending against deportation. Although the rule in the circuit remains undetermined on whether an attorney is incompetent for failing to inform a defendant of the deportation consequences of a plea, the court held that an affirmative misrepresentation by counsel is clearly objectively unreasonable. The court also found prejudice because the facts of this case clearly demonstrate that the defendant would not have plead guilty had she known of the deportation consequences.

2000: United States v. McCoy
215 F.3d 102 (D.C. Cir. 2000)

Counsel ineffective in drug case for advising client that he would only face 188 to 235 months under the Sentencing Guidelines if he accepted the government's plea, when in fact he faced 262 to 327 months. Defendant prejudiced because he would not have pleaded guilty if he had been given the correct information and he had legally cognizable defenses to present if he proceeded to trial.

1998: United States v. Gordon,
156 F.3d 376 (2nd Cir. 1998)

Counsel ineffective for failing to properly advise the defendant during plea negotiations of the sentence he faced. The defendant was charged with multiple counts of aiding and abetting false statements to licensed firearms dealers and receipt or possession of firearms by a convicted felon. Trial counsel advised the defendant that he would face 120 months confinement if convicted on all, but with a guilty plea to one count he would face approximately 84 months confinement. The defendant proceeded to trial and was convicted on all counts. The actual sentencing range was 262 to 327 months and he was sentenced to 210 months. Court held that counsel was ineffective for failing to accurately advise the defendant and the defendant was prejudiced because he would have plead guilty to one count if he had known the true maximum. New trial ordered.

*Meyers v. Gillis
142 F.3d 664 (3rd Cir. 1998)

Counsel ineffective in capital murder case plead to second degree. Counsel advised defendant he would get life sentence but parole was typically granted after seven years, but counsel failed to advise the defendant the it was actually life without parole and parole could be granted only if the governor first commuted the sentence to a term of years and the current governor did not have a history of commuting. Counsel was not aware of the LWOP provision and relied on a report showing parole typically granted after seven years when a different governor, who did typically commute, was in office. Counsel's deficiency was prejudicial because the defendant would not have plead guilty even though it was a capital case because he was not concerned with the possibility of a death sentence (only concerned about impact on family and parole eligibility). The court found a reasonable possibility based on the evidence of lack of premeditation and self-defense that, if defendant had gone to trial, he would only have been convicted of third degree (manslaughter) which has a maximum of 20 year sentence.

1996: United States v. Guerra
94 F.3d 989 (5th Cir. 1996)

Counsel ineffective for failing to advise defendant of the correct maximum punishment before defendant entered plea based on court's advice that defendant faced a maximum of 60 years when the defendant actually only faced 30 year maximum. No procedural bar due to failure to raise on direct appeal because defense counsel failed to file direct appeal even though the defendant requested that he do so. Counsel's actions satisfied the "cause" prong of the standard for surmounting the procedural bar.

1995: Finch v. Vaughn
67 F.3d 909 (11th Cir. 1995)

Counsel ineffective for advising defendant to plead guilty to state drug charges with understanding that his state sentence would run concurrently to his federal sentence, where federal government was not bound by plea agreement and had a parole violation policy of suspending or tolling federal sentence so that parole could be revoked and sentence served in full after completion of a state term.

1991: Garmon v. Lockhart
938 F.2d 120 (8th Cir. 1991)

Trial counsel ineffective for incorrectly advising defendant that he would only serve 1/6 of his plea bargain sentence.

1990: Hill v. Lockhart
894 F.2d 1009 (8th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 497 U.S. 1011 (1990)

Defendant was denied EAC by counsel's failure to ascertain through minimal research applicable statute governing parole eligibility for second offenders and to inform his client accurately when asked about that eligibility, as basic minimum amount of time that defendant would have to serve was integral factor in plea negotiation, particularly given attorney's knowledge that timing of eligibility was dispositive issue in accepting plea bargain. See also Hill v. Lockhart, 877 F.2d 698 (8th Cir. 1989).

 

 

 U.S. District Court Cases

 

2007: U.S. v. Marcos-Quiroga,
478 F. Supp. 2d 1114 (N.D. Iowa 2007).

Counsel ineffective in guilty plea to drug trafficking offense for erroneously advising the defendant he would not qualify for sentencing as a career offender. The court’s ruling was entered based on a motion to withdraw the guilty plea and a pro se motion for appointment of new counsel prior to sentencing. Counsel’s conduct was deficient because the defendant had prior convictions in Iowa for felony delivering cocaine and misdemeanor assault with intent to commit sexual abuse. “[T]here should have been no doubt . . . [that the] two prior convictions . . . would qualify him for career offender status. Thus, counsel certainly could have predicted with a fair degree of certainty that [he] would be sentenced as a career offender.” Id. at 1135 (emphasis in original). Prejudice found because the defendant likely would not have plead guilty absent counsel’s erroneous advice. Motion to withdraw guilty plea and for appointment of new counsel granted.

2002: Moore v. Bryant
237 F. Supp. 2d 955 (C.D. Ill. 2002)

Counsel was ineffective in murder case for giving erroneous advice to the defendant prior to entry of his guilty plea. The defendant was fifteen years old and charged as an adult with first degree murder. Although the defendant maintained his innocence, counsel recommended that the defendant enter a plea in order to receive a recommendation of a 20 year sentence, which was the minium allowed. Counsel informed the defendant that if he plead guilty he would only be required to serve fifty percent of the 20 year sentence, but that if he went to trial he would be subject to the new state statute that would require that the defendant serve at least 85 percent of his sentence. Although the defendant was very reluctant he followed counsel’s advice. Counsel’s advice was "just plain wrong" because the new statute did not become effective until after the defendant’s trial and did not apply retroactively. Prejudice was found because the defendant plead guilty on counsel’s advice that he would only have to serve 10 years as opposed to 22 to 27 years if he went to trial and was found guilty. The state court’s decision was rejected under AEDPA as an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law.

2001: Fowler-Cornwell v. United States
159 F. Supp. 2d 291 (N.D.W. Va. 2001)

Counsel ineffective in firearm and drug distribution case for failing to advise the defendant that her sentence for the firearm offense could not be made to run totally concurrent with her sentence on the distribution offense. Counsel’s conduct was deficient because he was not familiar with the pertinent provisions of the sentencing guidelines. Prejudice found where the defendant had already rejected a proposed plea that would have resulted in a 25 year sentence, and it was probable that, but for her counsel’s failure to inform her that her sentences would have to run consecutively, she would have proceeded to trial and rejected the plea agreement under which she faced an absolute minimum sentence of 27 years.

1996: Kates v. United States
930 F. Supp. 189 (E.D. Pa. 1996)

Counsel ineffective in drug case for failing to advise defendant that, under sentencing guidelines, he faced a sentence of between 30 years and life, as opposed to government's plea offer of five to 40 years, with possible downward departure below five years. Prejudice found even though counsel testified that defendant was adamant about not accepting a plea agreement, because of reasonable probability that he would have changed his mind if he had known the true facts.

 

 State Cases

 

2007: Sial v. State,
862 N.E.2d 702 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007).

Counsel ineffective in theft case for failing to advise the defendant that his guilty plea carried possible deportation consequences. Counsel’s conduct was deficient and he admitted–“with admirable candor”–“that he dropped the proverbial ball.” Id. at 707. The fact that the probation officer preparing the presentence investigation report may have advised the defendant of the deportation causes a month after the plea was irrelevant to what the defendant knew at the time of the plea. Prejudice found because the defendant, a native of Pakistan, had been in the U.S. for 20 years and had a wife and 13-year-old daughter, who was presumably born here and a U.S. citizen. Thus, sufficient circumstances existed to establish a reasonable probability that the defendant would not have plead guilty if he had been adequately advised.

2006: State v. Patel,
626 S.E.2d 121 (Ga. 2006)

Counsel was ineffective in sexual battery plea of nolo contendre for making affirmative misrepresentations to the defendant with respect to the effect of the plea on the defendant’s future participation as a physician in federal health care programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid. The defendant entered a plea only after specifically asking counsel about this issue. Without conducting “the basic research” necessary, counsel incorrectly advised the defendant that there would not be any long-term consequence when, in fact, the defendant was prohibited from participation in these programs for 10 years. Although there is no constitutional requirement to advise defendant’s of collateral consequences of a plea, counsel here made an affirmative misrepresentation in response to the defendant’s specific inquiries. Prejudice found because the defendant would not have entered a plea of nolo contendre if he had been properly advised.

2005: Davis v. Murrell,
619 S.E.2d 662 (Ga. 2005).

Counsel was ineffective in armed robbery plea case. The defendant was charged with six armed robberies and other offenses and plead guilty to one armed robbery in exchange for dismissing the other charges and a sentence of 20 years that was made concurrent to a sentence he was serving in Florida. Counsel’s conduct was deficient because counsel affirmatively misinformed the defendant that he would be eligible for parole and sentence review when neither was true. Prejudice found.

2004:Cobb v. State
895 So. 2d 1044 (Ala. Crim. App. 2004)

Counsel ineffective in driving under the influence case for failing to adequately investigate and advise the defendant prior to his entry of a guilty plea. The defendant plead guilty under the assumption that he would be accepted into drug court and would receive no prison time. Because of a prior conviction of which counsel was unaware, the defendant was ineligible for drug court. Counsel admitted in his post-trial motions and conceded that his conduct was deficient. Prejudice found because the defendant consistently maintained innocence and would not have plead guilty if he had been adequately advised.

Hernandez v. Commissioner of Correction
846 A.2d 889 (Conn. App. Ct. 2004).

Counsel ineffective in murder nolo contendre plea case for erroneously advising the defendant concerning parole eligibility. During the first day of trial, the defendant withdraw his not guilty plea and entered a nolo plea in exchange for a 25 year sentence. He had been informed by counsel that he would be eligible for parole after serving half of the sentence, when the defendant was ineligible for parole under state law. Counsel’s conduct was deficient and the defendant was prejudiced because he likely would not have entered the plea absent counsel’s misadvice because the defendant had a plausible self-defense argument and the court had already excluded the testimony of the only state’s witness that could testify about the defendant’s motive to commit murder.

Matton v. State
872 So. 2d 308 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004).

Counsel in sexual battery case was ineffective in probation revocation plea case for failing to advise the defendant that he was entitled to credit for his previously accrued "gain time" in prison and that, by entering plea agreement for 9 years credit, he was waiving his right to this gain time credit to which he was otherwise entitled. Counsel was also ineffective for failing to challenge the victim injury points included in the sentencing guidelines scoresheet simply because they had been included in the initial sentencing and counsel believed she could not challenge them. Counsel’s conduct was deficient because she could have made the challenge. Prejudice was found because the defendant was entitled to the gain time absent a knowing and intelligent waiver and the state could not include the victim injury points without proof of actual physical injury to the victim. Admission to probation violation withdrawn.

Rollins v. State
591 S.E.2d 796 (Ga. 2004)
.

Counsel was ineffective in drug plea for giving the defendant erroneous advise concerning the collateral consequences of pleading guilty, which resulted in the defendant pleading guilty. The defendant was a native of Barbados and a resident alien when she entered a first offender guilty plea to a drug charge based on trace amounts of cocaine discovered on a dollar bill in her purse. Although the defendant maintained innocence and the state’s evidence was very weak, she entered a plea on the advice of counsel. Prior to entry of the plea, the defendant asked counsel if there would be any negative repercussions from the plea that would effect the defendant’s desire to go to law school and become a lawyer and her INS status. Without conducting any research, counsel advised the defendant that there would be no repercussions. Counsel’s conduct was deficient because basic research would have revealed that the defendant was subject to deportation upon a drug conviction. Basic research also would have revealed that it is standard practice for any state bar to require the applicant to provide information concerning prior convictions. Prejudice was found because both the defendant and counsel testified unequivocally that the defendant would not have entered a plea had she known of the adverse impact on either her intension to become a lawyer or her immigration status.

2003:State v. Rojas-Martinez
73 P.3d 967 (Utah Ct. App. 2003), cert. granted 80 P.3d 152 (Utah 2003)

Counsel ineffective in affirmatively misrepresenting the deportation consequences prior to entry of guilty plea. While deportation is a collateral consequence and an attorney has no duty to inform a client of deportation consequences of a guilty plea, if counsel addresses the subject the advice must be accurate. Here where deportation was a virtually automatic, unavoidable consequence but counsel informed the defendant that he "might or might not" get deported this was an affirmative misrepresentation of the truth. Prejudice found because the defendant would not have plead guilty if he had known the truth.

2001: Crabbe v. State
546 S.E.2d 65 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001)

Counsel ineffective in negotiated plea for kidnaping and other charges for erroneously advising the defendant that he would be eligible for parole after 10 years when defendant would, in fact, have to serve the entire 20 years without parole eligibility. While "[t]here is no requirement that a defendant be advised of his eligibility or ineligibility for parole for his guilty plea to be valid . . . [if] the defense strategy in plea negotiations is an attempt to ensure the defendant's eligibility for parole, and the defendant's attorney misinforms his client that he will be eligible for parole, the attorney renders ineffective assistance."

State v. Kress
636 N.W.2d 12 (Iowa 2001)

Counsel ineffective in plea to obtaining prescription drug by forgery case for failing to file a motion in arrest of judgment, which was required to challenge the voluntariness of the plea on appeal, because the trial court incorrectly advised the defendant of the minimum sentence. The court advised her that the minimum was one third of the maximum indeterminate sentence but that it could be waived by the court. The court initially did waive but then reopened the record and declared no discretion to do so. The court was correct that it had no discretion but defense counsel did not object or file the motion. Counsel was deficient because there was no strategy, just "legal misadvice." Defendant was prejudiced because she may not have pled guilty absent the misadvice.

Bronson v. State
786 So. 2d 1083 (Miss. Ct. App. 2001)

Counsel ineffective in armed robbery plea for misleading the defendant about the possible minimum sentence, which rendered the plea invalid because it was not knowingly and voluntarily made. The court reversed due to the combination of the judge's failure to apprize the defendant of the minimum sentence, the petition to enter the plea contained incorrect and misleading information, and the attorney misled the defendant to believe that he could possibly get off without serving any jail time, when in reality the minimum sentence for his crime was three years.

2000: Aldus v. State
748 A.2d 463 (Me. 2000)

Counsel ineffective in aggravated assault case for failing to request a continuance in plea hearing in order to learn why the INS was "looking for" the defendant and to advise her accordingly. Defendant plead guilty in a plea arrangement unaware that the plea made her "conclusively presumed" deportable. While the court did not find that every defense lawyer should know immigration consequences and did not review the issue of whether this was a collateral consequence for which no advice was required, deficient conduct found for not seeking continuance in order to answer defendant's question about INS. Prejudice found because she would not have plead guilty if she had known of deportation consequence.

State v. Vieira
760 A.2d 840 (N.J. Super. Ct. 2000)

Counsel ineffective in failing to address deportation issue for defendant from Portugal, who had resided in U.S. for 30 years, prior to plea for third degree case. While deportation may not be a penal consequence of guilty plea and counsel is not obligated to make specific inquiry as to residency status of a defendant, when a defendant previously discloses that he is a resident alien, the knowledge is imputed to defense counsel and the defendant discloses in open court that he has problems reading and writing English, counsel's performance is constitutionally deficient if counsel does not address issue of deportation with defendant and defendant is not aware of risk of deportation. "When counsel makes a strategic choice based on inadequate investigation, however, the strategic choice is robbed of its presumption of competence and must be judged on whether reasonable professional judgments support the limitations on investigation. Id. at 685-86.

People v. Brown
723 N.E.2d 362 (Ill. App. Ct. 1999), appeal denied, 729 N.E.2d 498 (Ill. 2000)

Counsel ineffective in plea negotiations in aggravated battery and firearms case because counsel was not aware that the defendant was subject to a mandatory life term as habitual criminal if convicted of aggravated battery. Defendant had told the investigator of prior convictions and information was in counsel's file. The state had offered a plea agreement that still would have subjected the defendant to mandatory life. Prejudice found though because there was a reasonable probability that if defense counsel had known of the mandatory life problem, counsel may have been able to negotiate a better deal to avoid the issue.

Coker v. State
995 S.W.2d 7 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999)

Counsel ineffective in burglary, theft, damage to property, and possession of drug case for failing to adequately advise defendant on sentence possibilities prior to guilty plea. Guilty plea to possession of controlled substance was rendered involuntary by defense counsel's ineffective assistance in representing that sentence for possession, which was initially sentence of probation, would run concurrently with sentences for two other offenses, without disclosing that trial court had discretion to order consecutive sentences if probation was revoked, though defendant understood possible sentencing range for possession offense. Probation revoked and defendant's sentences ran consecutively.

Turner v. State
335 S.C. 382, 517 S.E.2d 442 (1999)

Counsel ineffective for failing to adequately advise prior to plea. Defendant entered plea to pending charges after his probation was revoked and he was sentenced to serve the remaining 14 years on prior charges. He actually only had 7 years remaining on prior though and would not have plead guilty for 15 year concurrent sentence if he had known that.

Ex parte Moody
991 S.W.2d 856 (Tex. Ct. App. 1999)

Counsel ineffective in drug possession case for advising defendant erroneously that, if he plead guilty in state court, he would be transferred back to federal prison to serve a previously imposed sentence and his state and federal sentences would run concurrently. This advice was false and defendant had to serve 15 year state sentence and then serve all of federal sentence. Defendant would not have plead guilty but for this erroneous advice.

1998: Ward v. State
708 So. 2d 11 (Miss. 1998)

Counsel ineffective in sale of cocaine and escape from jail plea case for failing to adequately advise the defendant of the possible punishments. Even though the escape charge the defendant faced carried only a six month maximum, counsel allowed defendant to plead guilty to the more serious violent felony escape charge and the defendant was sentenced to five years on that charge. Defendant also argued that he was not advised of the possible punishment range on the cocaine charge and the record and the state's evidence did not rebut that claim. Because counsel made such an egregious error on the escape charge, the court was not satisfied that counsel rendered adequate assistance on the cocaine charge. Thus, both pleas set aside because not voluntarily and knowingly made. Court held, "Effective assistance of counsel contemplates counsel's familiarity with the law that controls his client's case." 708 So. 2d at 14.

State v. Thomsen
719 A.2d 1288 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1998)

Counsel ineffective in case of eluding police by motor vehicle, which was charged as fourth degree. Even though statute had been amended effective prior to this crime to make these offenses second degree, counsel was unaware of the change in the statute and did not advise the defendant of the possible increase in penalty. No one discovered the change until after conviction, but before sentencing, and the judge changed the conviction to second degree. The Court held that the lack of knowledge prejudiced the defendant in his consideration of the proffered pre-trial plea offer when he was unaware of his potential criminal exposure in rejecting it. The Court declined, however, to conduct Strickland prejudice analysis because the result was that the defendant was denied a fair criminal process and notice similar to the problem in Lankford v. Idaho, 500 U.S. 110 (1991) (failure to give notice that defendant was subject to death penalty prior to death sentence violated due process).

1995: Morales v. State,
910 S.W.2d 642 (Tex. Ct. App. 1995)

Counsel ineffective in child abuse case for failing to advise non-English speaking client prior to entering plea with no deal that judge could sentence her to up to 99 years and that she would be deported. Counsel never mentioned deportation and told client that she would get no more than 30 years. She got 75 years.

Tallant v. State
866 S.W.2d 642 (Tex. Ct. App. 1993)

Trial counsel ineffective in aggravated sexual assault case for advising defendant that if he plead guilty and waived jury sentencing that he would probably get probation when the court was precluded from granting probation in aggravated sexual assault case.

1992: People v. Blommart
604 N.E.2d 1054 (Ill. App. Ct. 1992), appeal denied, 612 N.E.2d 516 (Ill. 1993)

Counsel ineffective in murder of child prosecution for misinforming defendant as to potential penalty for murder, misleading her concerning eligibility for work release, and possibility of losing parental rights to other son. Based on incorrect advice, defendant rejected plea agreement in which she could have pled guilty to involuntary manslaughter and did not even request a manslaughter instruction at trial.

Williams v. State,
605 A.2d 103 (Md. 1992)

Counsel ineffective for failing to advise defendant that he faced a mandatory sentence of 25 years which resulted in defendant turning down a plea offer for a lesser included offense and 10 years.

1991:Reeves v. State
564 N.E.2d 550 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991)

Counsel ineffective for advising defendant to accept plea offer to avoid being charged as habitual offender when defendant was not eligible for habitual offender status

1991: Alexander v. State
303 S.C. 539, 402 S.E.2d 484 (1991)

Trial counsel ineffective for advising client that he would face potential life sentence if he proceeded to trial when he would have actually faced a 7-25 year sentence for one charge and a 25 year sentence for the second charge. Based on trial counsel's erroneous advice, defendant pled guilty.

Ray v. State
303 S.C. 374, 401 S.E.2d 151 (1991)

Counsel ineffective for advising defendant he would get life without parole if convicted which prompted guilty pleas when sentence actually ranged from 75 years without parole to as little as 10 years if sentences ran concurrently.

Ex parte Battle
817 S.W.2d 81 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991)

Trial counsel ineffective in aggravated sexual assault case for advising defendant that if he pled guilty he could get probation when state law prohibited probation for that offense.

1990: Howard v. State
783 S.W.2d 61 (Ark. 1990)

Trial counsel in kidnapping and rape case (defendant's husband was accomplice) ineffective for recommending that the defendant plead guilty without the benefit of a plea bargain. Counsel's advice was based on reliance on outdated statutes and counsel's belief that all or part of the sentence would be suspended and the defendant would spend no more than 90 days in prison when the defendant actually got 20 and 40 year consecutive sentences. In addition, during the representation, the defendant was undergoing psychiatric treatment, having problems with alcohol abuse, and having sexual relations with counsel.

Lotero v. People,
560 N.E.2d 1104 (Ill. App. Ct. 1990)

Counsel ineffective for incorrectly advising client that he could not be deported if he pled guilty to narcotics charge.

People v. Maranovic
559 N.E.2d 126 (Ill. App. Ct. 1990)

Counsel ineffective for failing to realize defendant's alien status and advise him of deportation consequence of pleading guilty to felony even though presentence report indicated that defendant was born in Yugoslavia and counsel had to have an interpreter at times to communicate with client.

1989: People v. Miranda
540 N.E.2d 1008 (Ill. App. Ct.), appeal denied, 545 N.E.2d 736 (Ill. 1989)

Counsel ineffective for failing to advise alien defendant of deportation consequence of pleading guilty to felony.

Hinson v. State
297 S.C. 456, 377 S.E.2d 338 (1989)

Trial counsel in murder case ineffective for advising client that he would be eligible for parole in 10 years if he pled guilty when in fact he would not be eligible for parole until 20 years had passed. Defendant pled guilty based on this erroneous advice.

1987: Ex parte Pool,
738 S.W.2d 285 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987)

Counsel ineffective for misadvising based on prosecutor's assertions that defendant could get a minimum 25 year sentence for felony DWI if he didn't accept state's plea offer.

1986: People v. Padilla
502 N.E.2d 1182 (Ill. App. Ct. 1986), appeal denied, 508 N.E.2d 734 (Ill. 1987)

Counsel ineffective for incorrectly advising client that he could not be deported if he pled guilty to felony charge.

1985: People v. Correa
485 N.E.2d 307 (Ill. 1985) (affirming 465 N.E.2d 507 (Ill. App. Ct. 1984))

Counsel ineffective for incorrectly advising client that he could not be deported if he pled guilty to felony.