Opinion ID: 2140929
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: U.S. Supreme Court Decisions in Strickland & Hill

Text: It is clear that the necessary showing of prejudice in Sixth Amendment cases is not definitively settled. [4] In Strickland, the Supreme Court established the two-part test for relief based on a violation of the right to effective assistance of counsel held applicable to the states under the Fourteenth Amendment. [5] Under Strickland, the defendant must show deficient attorney performance and resulting prejudice. Strickland dealt with ineffectiveness claims that related only to sentencing but discussed the issue as it related to the trial as a whole. The Court reasoned that the purpose of the Counsel Clause is to ensure a fair trial and to protect the adversary process. Id. at 685-86, 104 S.Ct. at 2063-64. Courts are to focus on whether the trial produced a just result. Id. Strickland defined prejudice in the context of a trial as follows: When a defendant challenges a conviction, the question is whether there is a reasonable probability that, absent the errors, the factfinder would have had a reasonable doubt respecting guilt. Id. at 695, 104 S.Ct. at 2068-69. One year after Strickland, the Court in Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 106 S.Ct. 366, 88 L.Ed.2d 203 (1985) unanimously held that Strickland 's analysis applies equally to cases resolved by a guilty plea. In Hill, the Court stated that in order to satisfy the `prejudice' requirement, the defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial. Hill, 474 U.S. at 59, 106 S.Ct. at 370. This language from Hill, standing alone, suggests that prejudice is a function of the outcome of the plea proceedings, i.e., if the defendant would not have pleaded guilty but for the attorney's shortcomings, the prejudice prong of Strickland is satisfied. Consistent with this view, some courts adjudicating ineffective assistance claims after Hill, including the postconviction court in this case, focused solely on the guilty plea and did not attempt to explore whether the defendant would have been convicted at trial. In Van Cleave's case, the postconviction court concluded that but for the subpar professional performance of his trial counsel, there is a reasonable probability Van Cleave would have gone to trial. That factual determination is not clearly erroneous, and if this reading of Hill were controlling, it would be dispositive here. Hill itself is not entirely clear on this point, however. In addition to the language already quoted, the Court also observed that the resolution of the `prejudice' inquiry will depend largely on whether the affirmative defense likely would have succeeded at trial. Id. The Court quoted with approval the following language from Evans v. Meyer, 742 F.2d 371, 375 (7th Cir.1984): It is inconceivable to us . . . that [the defendant] would have gone to trial on a defense of intoxication, or that if he had done so he either would have been acquitted or, if convicted, would nevertheless have been given a shorter sentence than he actually received (quoted in Hill, 474 U.S. at 59, 106 S.Ct. at 371). Thus, Hill also contains language suggesting that the decision to plead could be equated with an assessment of the probable result of a trial. [6] That is, if the evidence or affirmative defenses the lawyer should have uncovered or presented would likely have led to an acquittal, then it was reasonable to infer that the defendant would not have pleaded guilty; conversely, if the defenses would have failed, a guilty plea notwithstanding counsel's performance could be expected. As explained below, some courts have extracted this line of reasoning from Hill. However, to the extent Hill can be read to turn on the proposition that defendants will plead guilty if, and only if, they assess a conviction at trial as likely, Hill reasoned from a premise that we believe is questionable. Indeed, a defendant's conclusion that success is remotely possible, if not likely, is sufficient to induce many to go trial. However, subsequent authority leads to the conclusion that a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel does entail a showing of reasonable probability of a better result at trial, if not for precisely the reason suggested by this reading of Hill.