Where plea counsel's ineffective assistance causes a defendant to misapprehend the consequences of pleading guilty, may the defendant obtain relief even if unable to show a likelihood of prevailing at trial?

QUESTION PRESENTED In Lee v. United States, 137 S.Ct. 1958, 1966 (2017), the Court held that a per se rule barring relief for ineffectiveness of plea counsel in the absence of a likelihood of a better outcome for the defendant at trial is not appropriate and that “a defendant’s decisionmaking ... may not turn solely on the likelihood of conviction after trial.” The Court explained that where counsel’s errors cause the defendant to misapprehends the consequences of pleading guilty and there is a reasonable probability that those consequences were so adverse as to cause the defendant to reject the plea, relief may be warranted. Jd. at 1967-68. Petitioner moved under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his conviction alleging that but for plea counsel’s misrepresentations regarding whether Petitioner’s conduct violated the law, Petitioner would have believed himself actually innocent of the charge and thus unwilling to falsely admit guilt. The district court denied relief because Petitioner failed to show a likelihood of prevailing at trial. The question presented is: Where plea counsel erroneously convinces a defendant to believe that he is guilty of an offense, may the guilty-pleading defendant obtain relief from the plea based on counsel’s ineffectiveness, even if the defendant is unable to show a likelihood of prevailing at trial, if the defendant can show at an evidentiary hearing that he would not falsely have admitted guilt? i INTERESTED PARTIES The are no parties interested in the proceeding other than those named in the caption of the appellate decision. ii