JAE LEE v. UNITED STATES
Supreme Court of the United States, Roberts, June 23, 2017,
IAC- A defendant who enters a plea that could get him deported can show prejudice by proving that his attorney’s ineffective assistance caused him to plead guilty and that he was prejudiced because he otherwise would have gone to trial.

(Dissent- Thomas- Strickland shouldn’t apply to deportation advice)
(Dissent- Thomas with Alito- A defendant who would almost definitely be convicted after trial is not prejudiced by entering a plea deal based on bad advice, since the result would be the same)

Facts:
Jae Lee moved to the United States in 1983 and lived here as a lawful permanent resident. In 2008, federal officials raided his home in Tennessee and recovered 88 ecstasy pills, $32,432 in cash, and a rifle. Lee admitted to giving ecstasy to his friends.
Lee was charged with Possession With Intent to Distribute ecstasy. Prior to trial, Lee’s attorney told him that he should plead guilty. Lee’s attorney assured Lee that “if deportation was not in the plea agreement, ‘the government cannot deport you.'” Lee’s attorney was wrong.
During the plea agreement, Lee was informed by the judge that a conviction “could result in your being deported,” and asked “[d]oes that at all affect your decision about whether you want to plead guilty or not?” Lee answered “Yes, Your Honor.” Lee’s attorney then spoke with Lee and convinced him (wrongly) that he would be ok.
Lee pled guilty. Shortly thereafter, Lee found out that he had pled guilty to an offense that carries mandatory deportation.
Lee then filed a post-conviction motion trying to vacate his sentence.
In federal district court on post-conviction, both Lee and his trial attorney testified that deportation was the primary concern when deciding whether or not to take the plea deal or go to trial. The district court denied the motion because, even though Lee’s lawyer was ineffective, Lee would have been found guilty anyway because the case against him was so strong.
Lee appealed, but the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. In affirming, the Fifth Circuit stated that “no rational defendant charged with a deportable offense and facing overwhelming evidence of guilt would proceed to trial rather than take a plea deal with a shorter prison sentence.”
Lee requested that the Supreme Court review the case, arguing that he was prejudiced because if he had known that he would be deported he would have taken a chance for a “Hail Mary” victory at trial.

Held:
The Supreme Court agreed. “When a defendant alleges his counsel’s deficient performance led him to accept a guilty plea rather than go to trial, we do not ask whether, had he gone to trial, the result of that trial ‘would have been different’ than the result of the plea bargain.” Rather, Lee showed that he was prejudiced because he testified credibly that he would have gone to trial if he knew he would be deported otherwise.