Jae Lee v. United States

Background

Jae Lee is a lawful permanent resident who was charged with possessing ecstasy with intent to distribute. His lawyer told him pleading guilty would not lead to deportation, so Lee accepted a plea with a shorter prison term. After sentencing, Lee learned the conviction qualified as an aggravated felony and made him subject to mandatory deportation. He filed a motion to vacate his plea, arguing his lawyer's incorrect advice was ineffective and that deportation had driven his decision. Lower courts found counsel's performance deficient but held Lee had not proved prejudice and denied relief; the Court of Appeals affirmed and the Supreme Court took the case.

Reasoning

The key question was whether Lee showed he was prejudiced by his lawyer's wrong assurance about deportation. The Government agreed the lawyer's performance was deficient. The Court applied precedents about plea-stage ineffective assistance and asked whether Lee would have rejected the plea and insisted on trial if properly advised. The Court found strong evidence that deportation was the determinative issue: Lee repeatedly asked about removal, he said the warning affected his plea, his attorney said he would have advised trial if he had known, and Lee had deep ties to the United States but none to South Korea. Because deportation was particularly severe and the extra prison time from trial was not markedly worse, the Court concluded Lee showed a reasonable probability he would have chosen trial and reversed.

Real world impact

The ruling affects noncitizen defendants who rely on counsel's immigration advice when deciding pleas. Noncitizen defendants may challenge pleas when deportation was a controlling factor. The Court reversed and sent the case back for further proceedings.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Thomas, joined in part by Justice Alito, dissented, arguing the Sixth Amendment does not require accurate deportation advice and warning that the ruling undermines plea finality.