Opinion ID: 853369
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Hill's Discussion of the Issue

Text: The petitioner in Hill did not allege that he would not have pleaded if properly advised. For that reason, the United States Supreme Court found it unnecessary to determine whether there may be circumstances under which erroneous advice by counsel as to parole eligibility may be deemed constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel. Hill, 474 U.S at 60, 106 S.Ct. 366. Hill thus declined to rule on the prejudice showing required for a claim of ineffective assistance based on defective advice as to the penal consequences. Hill did, however, go on to observe that petitioner alleged no special circumstances that might support the conclusion that he placed particular emphasis on his parole eligibility in deciding whether or not to plead guilty. Id. The Court then observed that the petitioner's assessment of his parole eligibility would have equally affected his view of the expected penal consequences of both a plea and a conviction after trial. Id. Unlike Hill, Segura has alleged that he would not have pleaded, but, like Hill, Segura has alleged no special circumstances as to why his decision was affected by the alleged omission of counsel. And, it is clear that here, as in Hill, the omitted or misdescribed penal consequences flow equally from either a plea or a conviction after trial.