Christopher Gish v. Randall Hepp

Summary

Ineffective assistance of counsel; failure to investigate involuntary intoxication defense; prejudice standard under *Hill v. Lockhart* (reasonable probability defendant would have rejected plea and gone to trial). The Seventh Circuit held that even assuming deficient performance, the petitioner could not show prejudice because his Xanax-based involuntary intoxication defense had no reasonable prospect of success at trial, and the record showed he pleaded guilty based on the likelihood of success rather than any collateral consequence. The court distinguished *Lee v. United States*, reaffirming that *Hill* governs prejudice where the defendant's decision turned on trial prospects, not an outcome-agnostic factor like deportation. The state court's unreasonable application of *Strickland* on the performance prong did not warrant relief because the petitioner failed to satisfy the prejudice prong under de novo review.

Holdings

1. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals's decision was an unreasonable application of Strickland and based on an unreasonable determination of the facts because it disregarded evidence Gish presented on appeal that, if true, would demonstrate deficient performance.
2. Gish failed to show prejudice because the involuntary intoxication defense had no reasonable prospect of success at trial, and therefore there is no reasonable probability that he would have rejected the plea and gone to trial.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Wisconsin Court of Appeals unreasonably applied Strickland v. Washington in rejecting Gish's ineffective assistance claim on the ground that there was nothing for trial counsel to investigate.
2. Whether Gish was prejudiced by his trial counsel's failure to investigate a Xanax-based involuntary intoxication defense, such that there is a reasonable probability he would have rejected the plea and gone to trial.

Disposition

affirmed