Summary
The Supreme Court determined that the two-part test established in Strickland v. Washington is applicable to cases involving guilty pleas. This test requires a demonstration of both deficient performance by legal counsel and resulting prejudice to the defendant. To satisfy the prejudice prong in this context, a defendant must demonstrate that, but for counsel's professional errors, a decision to proceed to trial would have been made. In the specific case under consideration, the defendant, Hill, did not successfully fulfill this requirement.
Summary
The Court determined that the two-part Strickland test applies to guilty pleas. This test requires a defendant to prove two things: that their legal counsel performed inadequately, and that this inadequate performance resulted in harm. For a guilty plea, a defendant must specifically demonstrate that they would have chosen to go to trial if their attorney had not made errors. In the case of Hill, the defendant did not meet this requirement.
Summary
A court decided that a two-step test, known as the Strickland test, must be applied to guilty pleas. This test requires showing two things: a lawyer's performance was poor, and that poor performance caused harm. An accused individual must demonstrate a willingness to proceed to trial had their legal counsel not made errors; Hill was unable to meet this requirement.
Summary
The Court decided on a rule for people who plead guilty. This rule is called the Strickland test, and it has two main parts. It looks at whether a lawyer did a poor job and if that poor job caused a problem for the person. The person who was accused had to show that they would have gone to a trial if their lawyer had not made mistakes. Mr. Hill could not show this.