Document: 474 U.S. 52 106 S.Ct. 366 88 L.Ed.2d 203 William Lloyd HILL, Petitioner,v.A.L. LOCKHART, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction. No. 84-1103. Argued Oct. 7, 1985. Decided Nov. 18, Syllabus Pursuant to a plea-bargaining agreement, petitioner pleaded guilty in an court charges first-degree murder and theft property, the accepted plea, sentencing him, accordance with State's recommendations, concurrent sentences 35 years for 10 theft. Petitioner later filed federal habeas corpus petition alleging, inter alia, that his plea was involuntary by reason ineffective assistance counsel because court-appointed attorney had misinformed him if he would become eligible parole after serving one-third prison sentence, whereas under law petitioner, as "second offender," required serve one-half sentence before becoming parole. The District Court denied relief without hearing, Appeals affirmed. Held: did not err declining hold hearing on petitioner's claim. Pp. 56-60. (a) Where defendant enters upon counsel's advice, voluntariness depends whether advice within range competence demanded attorneys criminal cases. two-part standard adopted Strickland v. Washington, 466 668, 104 2052, 80 674, evaluating claims counsel—requiring show representation fell below objective reasonableness, there is reasonable probability that, but unprofessional errors, result proceeding have been different applies challenges based counsel. In order satisfy second, or "prejudice," requirement, must insisted going trial. (b) present case it unnecessary determine may be circumstances which erroneous eligibility deemed constitutionally counsel, allegations were insufficient "prejudice" requirement. He allege correctly informed about date, Nor any special might support conclusion placed particular emphasis deciding plead guilty. P. 60. 764 F.2d 1279 (CA8 1984), REHNQUIST, J., delivered opinion Court, BURGER, C.J., BRENNAN, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, POWELL, O'CONNOR, JJ., joined. WHITE, concurring judgment, STEVENS, Jack T. Lassiter, Little Rock, Ark., petitioner. John Steven Clark, Brinkley, respondent. Justice REHNQUIST Court. 1 Hill trial property. More than two sought ground failed advise second offender, United States Eastern en banc Eighth Circuit affirmed equally divided court. We granted certiorari difference between reached Fourth Strader Garrison, 611 61 (1979). 470 1049, 105 1745, 84 811 (1985). affirm judgment we conclude kind prejudice from allegedly incompetent entitled hearing. 2 Under law, charge carried potential 5 50 life prison, along fine up $15,000. Ark.Stat.Ann. §§ 41-1502(3), 41-901(1)(a), 41-1101(1)(a) (1977). Petitioner's negotiated agreement pursuant State, return both charges, agreed recommend judge impose signed written "plea statement" indicating understood against consequences pleading guilty, induced "by force, threat, promise" apart itself, realized bound retained sole "power sentence," discussed satisfied attorney's advice. last lines statement," just above signature, read: "I am aware everything this document. I fully understand what my rights are, voluntarily charged." 3 appeared at recounted events gave rise reiterated no "threats promises" made other entered charges. sentenced recommendations. also credit time already served told "[y]ou will least your you are parole." 4 date. According sentence. fact, previously convicted felony Florida, classified offender" § 43-2829 B(3) asked reduce term conformance original expectations. noted neither nor date prior concluded even misled "is such consequence [petitioner's] misinformation renders involuntary." held "even concerning wholly accurate, does render performance inadequate." 6 A panel affirmed, holding collateral rather direct need informed, claims. 731 568, 570-573 (1984). One dissented, arguing should alleged mistake informing "the applicable law" constituted warranted vacating plea. Id., 573-574 (Heaney, dissenting). On rehearing, 7 longstanding test determining validity "whether represents voluntary intelligent choice among alternative courses action open defendant." North Carolina Alford, 400 25, 31, 91 160, 164, 27 162 (1970); see Boykin Alabama, 395 238, 242, 89 1709, 1711, 23 274 (1969); Machibroda States, 368 487, 493, 82 510, 513, 473 (1962). Here contend "involuntary" "unintelligent" simply State through its officials supply information never Constitution requires furnish defendant's voluntary, indeed constitutional requirement inconsistent current rules procedure governing entry pleas courts. See Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 11(c); Advisory Committee's Notes 1974 Amendment 11, 18 U.S.C.App., p. 22 (federal courts generally inform accepting plea). Instead, relies entirely claim supplied erroneous. Where, here, represented during process "was cases." McMann Richardson, 397 759, 771, 90 1441, 1449, 25 763 (1970). As explained Tollett Henderson, 411 258, 93 1602, 36 235 (1973), who pleads "may only attack character showing received standards set forth McMann." 267, S.Ct., 1608. 8 Our concern Richardson quality advising stemmed more general principle all "defendants facing effective competent counsel." U.S., n. 14, 14; Reece Georgia, 350 85, 90, 76 167, 170, 100 L.Ed. 77 (1955); Powell 287 45, 53 55, 158 (1932). Two Terms ago, 674 (1984), There, citing McMann, "[w]hen complains ineffectiveness assistance, reasonableness." 687-688, 2065. held, however, "[t]he different." 694, 2068. This additional our "[a]n error professionally unreasonable, warrant setting aside effect judgment." 691, 2067. 9 Although decision Washington dealt capital proceeding, premised part similarity usual trial, same seems us ineffective-assistance arising out process. Certainly justifications imposing relevant context pleas: "The government responsible for, hence able prevent, errors reversal conviction Attorney come infinite variety likely utterly harmless they prejudicial. They cannot according likelihood causing prejudice. can defined sufficient precision defense conduct avoid. Representation art, act omission one sound brilliant another. Even shows therefore, actually adverse defense." 693, 11 addition, believe requiring defendants seek challenge their fundamental interest finality identified Timmreck, 441 780, 99 2085, 60 634 (1979): 12 " 'Every inroad concept undermines confidence integrity procedures; and, increasing volume judicial work, inevitably delays impairs orderly administration justice. impact greatest when new grounds approved vast majority convictions pleas. Moreover, unfair procedures resulted innocent rarely raised plea.' 784, 2087 (quoting Smith, 440 521, 528-529 (CA7 1971) (Stevens, dissenting)). 13 hold, pleas, first half nothing restatement supra, supra. hand, focuses affected outcome words, trial.** 14 many cases, inquiry closely resemble engaged reviewing obtained For example, where failure investigate discover potentially exculpatory evidence, determination "prejudiced" go depend discovery evidence led change recommendation assessment, turn, large prediction changed Similarly, affirmative crime charged, resolution largely succeeded See, e.g., Evans Meyer, 742 371, 375 1984) ("It inconceivable . [the defendant] gone intoxication, done so either acquitted or, convicted, nevertheless given shorter received"). these predictions possible necessary, objectively, regard "idiosyncrasies decisionmaker." 695, 15 claimed bargain. App. 31. find "prejudice." Indeed, mistaken belief seem calculation proposed went convicted. 16 Because necessary test, therefore 17 Affirmed. whom STEVENS joins, judgment. 19 question properly evidentiary has state write separately why, facts case, 20 It view, focus statement standardized form completed consultation client, submitted consideration. calls insertion specific appropriate spaces. Among items included misdemeanor, maximum and/or could receive found offense. There blank space indicate number suffered. 28. 21 indicates, "aware document." Ante, 54; provided disclosing convictions, reads "0." Ibid. unclear filled inserted number, allegation previous Florida conviction. incredible "0" known thus factual basis suggesting incompetent, affirmatively earliest Without knew conviction, applicability statute, provide None allegations, proved, entitle relief, record "that [defense] (1984); Were statement—had still sentence—petitioner opportunity prove 43-2829B(3) (1977) amounted client clearly satisfies prong analysis majority, said fall wide assistance" Sixth Amendment. 690, 2066. 24 examination reveals "show trial." 59. paragraphs petition, alleged, pertinent part, follows: understanding I'd get yrs. 1st degree & 1/3 do, less good time. 26 "My lawyer me negotiation binding sides prosecutor. know deviate concessions me, say do minimum enstead [sic] 1/3, until 8-9. Later, following objections Magistrate's order: 28 "Petitioner's arguments restated improperly advised incorrect plea." 40. 29 contends critical factor enter important understand." 41-42. 30 "It contention law." 46-47. 31 sum, (1977), ineffective-assistance-of-counsel Had allegation, prejudiced error, relief. ** Several Courts approach. Thomas Lockhart, 738 304, 307 1984); accord, Gavilan, 761 226, 228 (CA5 1985); Beans Black, 757 933, 936-937 Mitchell Scully, 746 951, 957 (CA2 374-375 1984).

Category: 0