What is the proper remedy when a defendant's lawyer fails to inform her client of, or offers deficient advice as to whether to accept, a favorable plea offer?

QUESTION PRESENTED Five years ago, this Court granted certiorari in a case that raised the very issue presented in this petition — what is the proper remedy when a defendant’s lawyer fails to inform her client of, or offers deficient advice as to whether to accept, a favorable plea offer? Burt v. Titlow, 571 U.S. 12, 24 n.3 (2013). Titlow was ultimately resolved on different grounds and the Court did not find it necessary to reach this issue. Over the course of the last five years, courts have struggled with this question and have ordered different remedies for similarly situated defendants who have been injured by their attorneys’ negligence during plea negotiations. Compare Titlow v. Burt, 680 F.3d 577 (6" Cir. 2012), rev'd on other grounds, 571 U.S. 12 (2013)(remanding with instructions to fashion a sentence that remedied the violation of defendant’s constitutional rights) and People v. Hudson 95 N.E.3d 1148 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017)(“trial court had discretion to reject details of the plea, but that discretion was limited by the requirement that the remedy had to neutralize the taint of the constitutional violation”) with State v. Rose, 406 P.3d 443, 450 (Mont. 2017)(noting that federal district court’s remand “invited” the state trial court to accept the reoffered plea or reject the plea and thereby deny the defendant of any remedy). This factually simple case presents an excellent vehicle for providing guidance on this issue. The questions presented in this case are: Whether this Court should grant certiorari to clarify the appropriate remedy for ineffective assistance during plea negotiations. Whether the remand in this case, which effectively denied the petitioner of any remedy for his Sixth Amendment injury, contravenes this Court’s decisions in United States v. Morrison, 449 U.S. 361 (1981), and Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (2012). i