Welcome to the world after Moussazadeh:

"The constitutionally appropriate level of
reasonableness is defined by the practices and expectations of the legal community and prevailing professional norms therein. Strickland, supra, at 688. In situations in which the law is not clear, counsel should advise a client that pending criminal charges may carry a risk of other serious consequences. When a serious consequence is truly clear, however, counsel has an equally clear duty to give [absolutely] correct advice. Both failure to provide correct information and providing incorrect information violate that duty."


My guess is that a great number of attorneys over the years failed to understand the duty of which the court speaks; especially since it seems to incorporate all kinds of "serious", but undefined, consequences.

One has to question why bad advice about the admissibility of a confession to a serious crime is not considered substandard (as held in Parker v. North Carolina), yet misinformation about parole eligibility is apparently a straw that breaks the camel's back. I would prefer my attorney could give good advice about a critical part of the State's case, than be right on top of parole eligibility. The again, maybe cases like Parker were overruled by Strickland and the occasion for the high court to say so just has not arisen yet.

[This message was edited by Martin Peterson on 02-15-12 at .]

The Court of Criminal Appeals should send a copy of The Perfect Plea to defense lawyers who commit ineffective assistance.