In the Supreme Court of Georgia
Decided: May 11, 2015
S14G1762. ALEXANDER v. THE STATE.
THOMPSON, Chief Justice.
Appellant Calvin Alexander pled guilty to three counts of aggravated child
molestation, two counts of statutory rape, three counts of child molestation and
two counts of enticing a child for indecent purposes pursuant to a non-
negotiated Alford plea.1 He was sentenced to 30 years on each count of
aggravated child molestation with 15 years to be served in prison and the
balance on probation; 15 years to serve on each of the statutory rape charges;
and 15 years on each of the child molestation charges. Thereafter, appellant
moved to withdraw his guilty plea on the ground of ineffective assistance of
counsel. In this regard, appellant asserted trial counsel failed to advise him he
would not be eligible for parole (because he was sentenced as a recidivist) and,
if he had been so advised, he would not have pled guilty. At the hearing upon
appellant’s motion, trial counsel testified he had no recollection of having
1
See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (91 SCt 160, 27 LE2d 162) (1970).
discussed parole eligibility with appellant.
The trial court denied appellant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea and
the Court of Appeals affirmed,2 holding it was constrained by this Court’s ruling
in Williams v. Duffy, 270 Ga. 580 (513 SE2d 212) (1999), that ineligibility for
parole has a collateral effect on a criminal sentence and that, therefore, a
lawyer’s failure to inform his client about parole eligibility cannot constitute
deficient performance as a matter of law. This Court granted appellant’s
petition for a writ of certiorari and posed this succinct question: Whether
Williams v. Duffy remains good law, see Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356
(130 SCt 1473, 176 LE2d 284) (2010), Smith v. State, 287 Ga. 391 (697 SE2d
177) (2010), and Taylor v. State, 304 Ga. App. 878 (698 SE2d 384) (2010)?
In Williams v. Duffy, the defendant was charged with several offenses,
including armed robbery. Pursuant to a negotiated plea bargain, the defendant
pled guilty to armed robbery and received a 15-year sentence. Thereafter, the
defendant filed a petition for habeas corpus, alleging his attorney rendered
ineffective assistance. The habeas court set aside the defendant’s conviction,
2
Alexander v. State, 328 Ga. App. 300 (761 SE2d 844) (2014).
2
finding the defendant’s attorney was ineffective because he failed to advise the
defendant that, pursuant to OCGA § 17-10-6.1, he would be ineligible for parole
and would be required to serve the entire 15-year sentence in jail. The warden
appealed and a majority of this Court reversed, reasoning that parole eligibility
or ineligibility only has a collateral effect on a defendant’s sentence and that an
attorney’s failure to advise a defendant of a collateral consequence cannot
constitute ineffective assistance.
We hold today that Williams is no longer good law and that it, and its
progeny, must be overruled. We begin our analysis with the Supreme Court’s
decision in Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (106 SCt 366, 88 LE2d 203) (1985).
In that case, petitioner pled guilty in state court to first degree murder and theft
of property. He subsequently sought federal habeas relief on the ground of
ineffective assistance of counsel, alleging his attorney misinformed him he
would become eligible for parole after serving one-third of his sentence when,
in fact, he was a “second offender” and was required to serve one-half of his
sentence before becoming eligible for parole. The district court denied habeas
relief, ruling that, even if petitioner’s attorney misled petitioner about parole
eligibility, petitioner’s plea was not rendered involuntary. The Court of Appeals
3
for the Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding that parole eligibility is a collateral, not
direct, consequence of a guilty plea and, therefore, a defendant need not be
informed of it. On certiorari, the Supreme Court affirmed. However, unlike the
Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court did not examine counsel’s misadvice with
a “direct or collateral effects” lens. Instead, it used the two-part Strickland v.
Washington3 test, held that it “applies to challenges to guilty pleas based on
ineffective assistance of counsel,” and concluded that the petitioner was unable
to satisfy the second, “prejudice” prong of Strickland. In reaching that
conclusion, the Court found it “unnecessary to determine whether there may be
circumstances under which erroneous advice by counsel as to parole eligibility
may be deemed constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel.” Hill, supra
at 60.
Williams cited Hill for the proposition that “[t]here is no constitutional
requirement that a defendant be advised of . . . collateral consequences in order
for his guilty plea to be valid.” Williams, supra at 581. However, although Hill
espoused that proposition, it is clear that it was made in the context of a federal
court’s obligation to insure that a defendant’s plea is voluntary and intelligent.
3
466 U.S. 668 (104 SCt 2052, 80 LE2d 674) (1984).
4
As noted above, Hill proposed an altogether different approach – the Strickland
v. Washington test – to evaluate the performance of counsel who incorrectly
advises a defendant about parole eligibility. In the words of the high Court:
“Where, as here, a defendant is represented by counsel during the plea process
and enters his plea upon the advice of counsel, the voluntariness of the plea
depends on whether counsel’s advice ‘was within the range of competence
demanded of attorneys in criminal cases.’ [Cit.]” Hill, supra at 56.
In his dissenting opinion in Williams, Presiding Justice Fletcher, joined
by then Chief Justice Benham, recognized the majority’s error:
The majority equates "constitutionally ineffective assistance" with
the deficiency prong. However, deficient performance is only
"constitutionally ineffective" when it causes prejudice. In looking
at the deficiency prong separately, I would hold that defense
counsel's obligation to his client in entering a guilty plea is not
defined by a trial court's duties in accepting a guilty plea. While the
two concepts are interrelated, I am persuaded that the more logical
approach is to recognize that a defendant's sixth amendment claim
of ineffective assistance of counsel is separate from a due process
claim that a plea was not knowingly and voluntarily made.
Id. at 583.
This Court subsequently distinguished between cases in which, like
Williams, counsel failed to inform a criminal defendant of the collateral
5
consequences of a plea, and those in which counsel affirmatively misinformed
a defendant of such consequences. In the latter situation, we analyzed counsel’s
performance with a Sixth Amendment, Strickland, approach. See, e.g., Smith
v. Williams, 277 Ga. 778 (596 SE2d 112) (2004) (ineffective assistance claim
arising from counsel’s incorrect advice concerning parole eligibility must be
determined by two-prong Strickland test); Rollins v. State, 277 Ga. 488 (591
SE2d 796) (2004) (habeas court erred by failing to differentiate between
counsel’s failure to advise client of collateral consequence and his affirmative
misrepresentation of such consequence). Nevertheless, we continued to apply
Williams when counsel completely failed to advise a client concerning the
collateral consequences of a plea agreement. See, e.g., Ellis v. State, 272 Ga.
763(534 SE2d 414) (2000).4
More recently, Padilla required us to rethink our course. In that case,
4
We now question whether these different approaches were ever appropriate. As the
Supreme Court observed in Padilla, supra at 370, “there is no relevant difference ‘between
an act of commission and an act of omission’ in this context.” Moreover, to limit an
ineffective assistance claim to “affirmative misadvice” gives defense counsel “an incentive
to remain silent on matters of great importance, even when answers are readily available.
Silence under these circumstances would be fundamentally at odds with the critical
obligation of counsel to advise the client of ‘the advantages and disadvantages of a plea
agreement.’” Id. In view of our decision to overrule Williams, we need not dwell on this
point further.
6
counsel erroneously assured his client that a guilty plea would not lead to his
deportation. Eschewing a direct versus collateral consequence analysis, the
Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of effective
assistance of counsel protects a defendant from erroneous advice about
deportation, id. at 366, and that a defendant establishes deficient performance
under Strickland when he shows that counsel failed to accurately advise him
about the automatic deportation consequences of a guilty plea and those
consequences could have been determined easily from reading the removal
statute.5
In Smith v. State, 287 Ga. 391 (697 SE2d 177) (2010), we shouldered the
Supreme Court’s decision in Padilla and took aim at the direct versus collateral
distinction set forth in Williams:
Direct and collateral consequences relate to the trial court's duty to
5
The State posits that the holding in Padilla is a narrow one; that it pertains only to
deportation consequences; and that defense attorneys would be unduly burdened if the
holding in Padilla were to implicate a myriad of potential consequences stemming from
guilty pleas. We disagree. Although the majority in Padilla took pains to circumscribe its
ruling, it plainly stated that “[i]t is quintessentially the duty of counsel to provide her client
with available advice about an issue like deportation and the failure to do so ‘clearly satisfies
the first prong of the Strickland analysis.’” Id. at 371 (emphasis added). Thus, the Supreme
Court made it clear that misadvice about serious collateral consequences other than
deportation, such as parole ineligibility (see id. at 387, n. 4 (Alito, J. concurring in
judgment)), can constitute a constitutional violation.
7
ensure that guilty pleas are knowingly and voluntarily entered as a
matter of Fifth Amendment due process, while ineffective
assistance of counsel relates to the defense lawyer's duty pursuant
to the Sixth Amendment. See Williams v. Duffy, 270 Ga. at 583
(Fletcher, P. J., dissenting) (noting that "defense counsel's
obligation to his client in entering a guilty plea is not defined by a
trial court's duties in accepting a guilty plea," and "[w]hile the two
concepts are interrelated, . . . the more logical approach is to
recognize that a defendant's sixth amendment claim of ineffective
assistance of counsel is separate from a due process claim that a
plea was not knowingly and voluntarily made"). Padilla confirms
this analytical distinction. The U. S. Supreme Court specifically
declined to rely on the direct versus collateral consequences
doctrine in determining the ineffective assistance claim presented,
instead applying Strickland's familiar evaluation of whether counsel
acted reasonably in light of the prevailing professional norms for
criminal defense lawyers. This approach clarifies that defense
counsel may be ineffective in relation to a guilty plea due to
professional duties for the representation of their individual clients
that set a standard different - and higher - than those traditionally
imposed on trial courts conducting plea hearings for defendants
about whom the judges often know very little. This makes both
analytical and practical sense.
Id. at 397. See also Lafler v. Cooper, __ U.S. __ (132 SCt 1376, 182 LE2d 398)
(2012) (ineffective assistance of counsel claim stemming from rejection of plea
offer should be addressed by applying Strickland and not by inquiring whether
rejection of plea was knowing and voluntary).
Our decision in Smith v. State made it clear that Williams stood on shaky
ground. However, we did not overrule Williams at that time; nor did we firmly
8
decide whether a direct versus collateral consequence analysis remains viable
in the context of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.
Shortly after our decision in Smith v. State, the Court of Appeals held that
counsel’s failure to advise his client that a guilty plea will require registration
as a sex offender constitutes deficient performance. Taylor v. State, supra. In
Taylor, the defendant entered a guilty plea to two counts of child molestation
pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement. He was sentenced to ten years, one in
confinement and nine on probation. When the defendant met with his probation
officer, he was advised that, upon his release from confinement, he would be
required to register as a sex offender. Thereupon, the defendant moved to
withdraw his guilty plea. Following a hearing, the trial court denied the
defendant’s motion, reasoning that the sex offender registration requirement was
a collateral consequence and that counsel’s failure to inform his client of that
consequence could not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. The Court
of Appeals reversed. Relying on Padilla, the appellate court determined that a
direct versus collateral consequence distinction does not control the scope of
reasonable professional assistance required under Strickland. Thus, the
appellate court concluded, “even if registration as a sex offender is a collateral
9
consequence of a guilty plea, the failure to advise a client that his guilty plea
will require registration is constitutionally deficient performance.” Id. at 882-
883.
We agree with the Strickland analysis set forth in Taylor6 and hold that,
whether a guilty plea gives rise to a direct or collateral consequence, when a
criminal defendant seeks to withdraw a guilty plea on the ground of ineffective
assistance of counsel, the ineffective assistance claim must be evaluated under
the two-prong test set forth in Strickland v. Washington. Accordingly, as noted
above, Williams must be overruled.
We hasten to add that counsel’s failure to offer advice concerning a
collateral consequence will not rise to the level of constitutional deficiency in
every instance. Rather, our courts should weigh a deficient performance claim
“by looking to the practice and expectations of the legal community: ‘The
proper measure of attorney performance remains simply reasonableness under
prevailing professional norms.’ [Strickland.] We long have recognized that
‘[p]revailing norms of practice as reflected in American Bar Association
6
We do not, however, necessarily agree with Taylor that the failure to advise a
defendant about sex offender registration is a drastic measure or penalty intimately related
to the criminal process. A decision along those lines must await another day.
10
standards and the like . . . are guides to determining what is reasonable . . .’
[Cits.] Although they are ‘only guides,’ [Cit.] and not ‘inexorable commands,’
[Cit.], these standards may be valuable measures of the prevailing professional
norms of effective representation . . .” Padilla, supra at 366-367. In addition to
professional guidelines, our courts can look to these factors when weighing
advice concerning a collateral consequence: (1) whether the collateral
consequence is intimately related to the criminal process and is “nearly an
automatic result” flowing from the conviction; (2) whether the consequence is
a “drastic measure” or a penalty with harsh ramifications for the client; and (3)
whether the law imposing the consequence is “succinct, clear and explicit.”
Padilla, supra at 365-369; Taylor v. State, supra at 882.
When it comes to parole eligibility, we conclude that an attorney’s failure
to inform his or her client that he or she would be ineligible for parole as a
recidivist for the entirety of a lengthy prison sentence is constitutionally
deficient performance. We reach this conclusion for several reasons. First, we
note that the recidivist statute is, and has been, a prominent feature of our
criminal justice system – anyone who is subject to it should be informed
accurately about its consequences. See Commonwealth v. Pridham, 394 SW3d
11
867, 878 (Ky. 2012). See also National Legal Aid and Defender Association
(NLADA) Performance Guideline for Criminal Defense Representation 6.4
(prior to entry of plea, counsel must ensure that the client “fully and completely
understands . . . the maximum punishment, sanctions and other consequences
the accused will be exposed to by entering the plea”); American Bar Association
(ABA) Standards for Criminal Justice, Pleas of Guilty 14-3.2 (f) (“To the extent
possible, defense counsel should determine and advise the defendant,
sufficiently in advance of the entry of any plea, as to the possible collateral
consequences that might ensue from entry of the contemplated plea.”); Uniform
Superior Court Rules 33.8 (C) (3) (4) (trial judge should not accept guilty plea
without first informing defendant of maximum possible sentence and any
mandatory minimum sentence). Moreover, the statute in question, OCGA § 17-
10-7 (c), is “succinct, clear and explicit” and it applies automatically upon an
offender’s conviction as a recidivist. Finally, parole ineligibility is a drastic
penalty enacted to insure that a criminal offender serves his or her entire
sentence behind bars. See Commonwealth v. Pridham, supra.
When he entered his plea, appellant was faced with the possibility of
imprisonment for many years, and he was faced with the potential that he would
12
be sentenced as a recidivist and made ineligible for parole for the entirety of his
long sentences. In these circumstances, we hold that appellant was entitled to
advice from his lawyer about parole ineligibility. However, although appellant
presented evidence showing counsel failed to advise him he would be ineligible
for parole, the trial court did not make a finding in that regard. Indeed, such a
finding would have been unnecessary as long as Williams v. Duffy, supra, was
good law. Because we now overrule Williams, it is incumbent upon the trial
court to again evaluate appellant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea with the
two-prong Strickland test. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the trial
court to determine whether defense counsel performed deficiently and, if so,
whether the deficient performance prejudiced appellant. See Encarnacion v.
State, 295 Ga. 660, 664 (763 SE2d 463) (2014). To meet the prejudice prong
in the guilty plea context, appellant must demonstrate there is a reasonable
probability that, assuming counsel failed to inform him he would be ineligible
for parole, he would not have entered a guilty plea and would have insisted on
going to trial. Id.
Judgment reversed and case remanded with direction. All the Justices
concur.
13