Opinion ID: 2632557
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Probability of prevailing at trial.

Text: The State proposes that in order to show prejudice McKeeth must demonstrate he would have had a reasonable probability of prevailing at trial. In this fact scenario that is incorrect. Whether a defendant would or would not have been likely to prevail at trial has no direct bearing on whether his guilty plea was entered knowingly and voluntarily. See Hill, 474 U.S. at 59, 106 S.Ct. at 370, 88 L.Ed.2d at 210. In Hill, the Court required only that a defendant show that there was a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial. Id. The impact of counsel's errors on the defendant's chances of success at trial is a factor a court may use when determining the plausibility of the defendant's claim that those errors played a significant role in the decision to plead guilty. See id. In other words, the likelihood that without counsel's errors a defendant may or may not have been able to prevail at trial is relevant only to the extent it sheds light on the defendant's state of mind when he pleaded guilty. See id. In Hill, the Court noted that [i]n many guilty plea cases, the `prejudice' inquiry will closely resemble the inquiry engaged in by courts reviewing ineffective-assistance challenges to convictions obtained through trial. Id. (italics added). The Court in Hill illustrated its point using scenarios such as where the alleged ineffective assistance involved a failure to discover potentially exculpatory evidence or to advise the defendant of a potential affirmative defense. Id. Those examples involve ineffective assistance that directly relates to matters that, but for a guilty plea, would arise at trial. See id. However, when the Court in Hill stated that the effect of counsel's ineffectiveness at trial would be relevant in  many guilty plea cases, it was not stating a rule applying to all guilty plea cases. See id. (italics added). In contrast to the examples given in Hill, here the alleged ineffectiveness of counsel involves issues surrounding the reservations of rights agreement, and has nothing to do with issues that would be raised at trial. Therefore, here we simply apply the test articulated in Hill requiring a defendant 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. Id. To support his account, McKeeth has been able to offer more than his own potentially self-serving statement. McKeeth's trial counsel also testified and explained the logic of his strategy, and even one of the handling prosecutors retrospectively agreed with McKeeth's explanation of his intent. McKeeth also maintains the strategy of eliminating three counts of the charges before going to trial on the remainder is a common strategy. Common sense support's McKeeth's contention that his position at trial would have been improved by facing fewer counts, and fewer alleged victims. Indeed, McKeeth's account of his trial strategy is more plausible than the alternative: that he pleaded guilty on all counts in exchange for (1) the opportunity to appeal, which could equally well have been preserved at trial, and (2) the ability to withdraw his guilty plea to those counts vacated on appeal, which would have been meaningless. [2] The State maintains that even if the word charge in the agreement had been rendered as charges, it would not have communicated to the State that McKeeth intended to withdraw his guilty pleas to all six charges if he prevailed on appeal with respect to any one of them. The test in Hill, however, does not concern itself with the State's intent or understanding, focusing instead on the defendant's state of mind when choosing to plead guilty. See id. The State next contends the attorneys who prosecuted McKeeth would never have agreed to the terms he sought, had they been clearly communicated. Whether the State would have hypothetically agreed to McKeeth's terms has no bearing on the voluntariness of McKeeth's plea due to being mislead by his counsel. The question regarding McKeeth's strategy is not whether it could or should have worked as intended. See id. Instead, the question is whethereven if misguidedit plausibly could have been McKeeth's strategy. This Court finds McKeeth's petition satisfies the prejudice prong of the Strickland test.