Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Lee v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States

March 28, 2017, Argued; June 23, 2017, Decided

No. 16-327.

Case Summary

Overview

HOLDINGS: [1]-Defendant had adequately demonstrated a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's erroneous advice, he would have rejected a guilty plea where his plea colloquy and surrounding circumstances showed deportation was the determinative issue in his decision to accept the plea, and it was not irrational to reject the plea deal when there was some chance of avoiding deportation, however remote.

Outcome

Judgment reversed; case remanded. 6-2 Decision; 1 dissent.

LexisNexis® Headnotes

 

 

Constitutional Law > ... > Fundamental Rights > Criminal Process > Assistance of Counsel

Criminal Law & Procedure > Counsel > Effective Assistance of Counsel > Pleas

HN1  Assistance of Counsel

The Sixth Amendment guarantees a defendant the effective assistance of counsel at critical stages of a criminal proceeding, including when he enters a guilty plea.

 

Constitutional Law > ... > Fundamental Rights > Criminal Process > Assistance of Counsel

Criminal Law & Procedure > Counsel > Effective Assistance of Counsel > Tests for Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

HN2  Assistance of Counsel

To demonstrate that counsel was constitutionally ineffective, a defendant must show that counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that he was prejudiced as a result.

 

Constitutional Law > ... > Fundamental Rights > Criminal Process > Assistance of Counsel

Criminal Law & Procedure > Counsel > Effective Assistance of Counsel > Tests for Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

HN3  Assistance of Counsel

A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel will often involve a claim of attorney error during the course of a legal proceeding, for example, that counsel failed to raise an objection at trial or to present an argument on appeal. A defendant raising such a claim can demonstrate prejudice by showing a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.

Access the full text caseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

137 S. Ct. 1958 ; 198 L. Ed. 2d 476 ; 2017 U.S. LEXIS 4045 ; 85 U.S.L.W. 4412; 26 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 733; 2017 WL 2694701

JAE LEE, PETITIONER v. UNITED STATES

Notice: The LEXIS pagination of this document is subject to change pending release of the final published version.

Subsequent History: On remand at, Remanded by Lee v. United States, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 12144 (6th Cir.) (6th Cir., July 7, 2017)

Prior History:  [1] ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

Lee v. United States, 825 F.3d 311, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 10337 (6th Cir.) (6th Cir. Tenn., June 8, 2016)

Disposition: 825 F. 3d 311, reversed and remanded.