Whether a defendant may be entitled to relief for an attorney's ineffective assistance, even if another attorney offered reasonable advice

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW This Court has long held that a defendant has the right to the effective assistance of counsel at all critical stages of a criminal proceeding. Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156, 165, 132 S. Ct. 1376 (2012); Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668, 685, 104 S. Ct. 2052 (1984). Thus, in plea negotiations, for example, counsel must give good advice on whether to accept a plea deal or reject it and proceed to trial. Lafler, 566 U.S. at 165; Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 58-59, 106 S. Ct. 366 (1985). In deciding whether to appeal, counsel must give advice on the pros and cons of appealing. Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U. S. 470, 481, 120 S. Ct. 1029 (2000). Each case is examined based upon all the circumstances on a case-by-case basis. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688. Unanswered in these opinions is what happens when a defendant has two or more attorneys, one attorney gives objectively unreasonable advice that the defendant takes, to his detriment, but at least one other attorney had offered good advice. Does the fact that one attorney offered reasonable advice necessarily preclude a defendant from relief—no matter the totality of circumstances, and even when a court has ruled that another attorney’s advice was objectively unreasonable and that it prejudiced the defendant? The Sixth Circuit has answered, yes. This appears to be an issue of first impression for the Court. In this case, one attorney passively suggested that Petitioner accept a ten-year plea deal while another attorney—motivated by money to proceed to trial—passionately advised Petitioner to reject the plea offer with promises of freedom. Petitioner rejected the early plea deal but accepted a later plea offer, leading to a sentence of 35 years. Petitioner submitted that, just as any other question under Strickland, a court should view the totality of the circumstances in a case-by-case basis to determine whether relief is warranted. See id. The district court agreed that the attorney advising Petitioner to reject the ten-year plea deal was ineffective, describing the advice as “abysmal.” But the district court denied relief, finding that Petitioner was precluded from relief under Strickland because at least one attorney gave him reasonable advice. “That’s all the Sixth Amendment of the Constitutional required.” Pet. App. 29a The Sixth Circuit affirmed in a published decision. Without citation to any authority from this Court on its legal position in support of its decision, the Sixth Circuit held that a defendant is precluded from relief under Strickland as a matter of law so long as one attorney offered good advice. Pet. App. 8a. The question before the Court is whether a defendant may be entitled, at least under some circumstances, to relief as a result of an attorney’s ineffective assistance, even if another attorney offered reasonable advice. i