      5(&200(1'(' )25 )8//7(;7 38%/,&$7,21
           3XUVXDQW WR 6L[WK &LUFXLW 5XOH 

   (/(&7521,& &,7$7,21  )(' $SS 3 WK &LU
               )LOH 1DPH DS




81,7('67$7(6&28572)$33($/6
             )257+(6,;7+&,5&8,7
               BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB


       1R                ;
&257(= 0,//(5                     
        3HWLWLRQHU$SSHOOHH       
                                     1RV
                                   
           Y                       !
                                   
                                   
'(11,6 0 675$8%:DUGHQ          
       5HVSRQGHQW$SSHOODQW 
                                   
         1R               
                                   
.(50,7 (/'5,'*( +$<1(6            
          3HWLWLRQHU$SSHOOHH 
                                   
           Y                      
                                   
/8(//$ %85.(:DUGHQ              
                                   
6DJLQDZ&RUUHFWLRQDO)DFLOLW\ 
       5HVSRQGHQW$SSHOODQW 
                                  1
      $SSHDOIURPWKH8QLWHG6WDWHV'LVWULFW&RXUW
     IRUWKH(DVWHUQ'LVWULFWRI0LFKLJDQDW'HWURLW
     1RV²'HQLVH3DJH+RRG
                     'LVWULFW-XGJH
              $UJXHG2FWREHU
          'HFLGHGDQG)LOHG$XJXVW

                           
       0LOOHUHWDOY6WUDXEHWDO         1RV

%HIRUH%2**6*,/0$1DQG%5,*+7&LUFXLW-XGJHV
                       BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
                             &2816(/
$5*8('  7KRPDV 0 &KDPEHUV 2)),&( 2) 7+(
3526(&87,1* $77251(< 'HWURLW 0LFKLJDQ IRU
$SSHOODQWV  -RKQ 5 0LQRFN &5$0(5 0,12&. $QQ
$UERU0LFKLJDQ0DUOD50F&RZDQ67$7($33(//$7(
'()(1'(5 2)),&( 'HWURLW 0LFKLJDQ IRU $SSHOOHHV
21 %5,()  7KRPDV 0 &KDPEHUV 2)),&( 2) 7+(
3526(&87,1* $77251(< 'HWURLW 0LFKLJDQ IRU
$SSHOODQWV  -RKQ 5 0LQRFN &5$0(5 0,12&. $QQ
$UERU0LFKLJDQ0DUOD50F&RZDQ6XVDQ00HLQEHUJ
67$7( $33(//$7( '()(1'(5 2)),&( 'HWURLW
0LFKLJDQIRU$SSHOOHHV
   %5,*+7-GHOLYHUHGWKHRSLQLRQRIWKHFRXUW*,/0$1
- SS  GHOLYHUHG D VHSDUDWH FRQFXUULQJ RSLQLRQ
%2**6 - SS  GHOLYHUHG D VHSDUDWH GLVVHQWLQJ
RSLQLRQ
                       BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
                           23,1,21
                       BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
   0<521+%5,*+7&LUFXLW-XGJH7KHZDUGHQVRIWZR
0LFKLJDQ VWDWH FRUUHFWLRQDO LQVWLWXWLRQV DSSHDO D IHGHUDO
GLVWULFWFRXUW¶VFRQGLWLRQDOJUDQWRIKDEHDVFRUSXVWRSULVRQHUV
&RUWH]0LOOHUDQG.HUPLW+D\QHVRQWKHJURXQGRILQHIIHFWLYH
DVVLVWDQFH RI FRXQVHO  +D\QHV DQG 0LOOHU DUH FXUUHQWO\
VHUYLQJOLIHVHQWHQFHVZLWKRXWSDUROHDIWHUSOHDGLQJJXLOW\WR
ILUVWGHJUHHPXUGHU



    
     7KH +RQRUDEOH 0\URQ + %ULJKW 6HQLRU &LUFXLW -XGJH RI WKH 8QLWHG
6WDWHV &RXUW RI $SSHDOV IRU WKH (LJKWK &LUFXLW VLWWLQJ E\ GHVLJQDWLRQ
1RV                0LOOHUHWDOY6WUDXEHWDO          

  ,Q0LOOHUDQG+D\QHVZHUHILIWHHQDQGVL[WHHQ\HDUV
ROG UHVSHFWLYHO\  (DFK RQ WKH DGYLFH RI KLV RZQ GHIHQVH
FRXQVHO SOHG JXLOW\ LQ 0LFKLJDQ VWDWH FRXUW WR ILUVW GHJUHH
PXUGHU7KHLUDWWRUQH\VEHOLHYHGLWOLNHO\WKDWWKHWULDOFRXUW
ZRXOGLPSRVHMXYHQLOHVHQWHQFHV7KHWULDOFRXUWGLGVHQWHQFH
WKHPDVMXYHQLOHV,QHDFKFDVHWKHSURVHFXWLRQDSSHDOHGDQG
WKH0LFKLJDQ&RXUWRI$SSHDOVUHYHUVHG0LOOHUDQG+D\QHV
HDFK WKHQ UHFHLYHG WKH RQO\ DYDLODEOH DGXOW VHQWHQFH XQGHU
0LFKLJDQODZOLIHLQSULVRQZLWKRXWSRVVLELOLW\RISDUROH
1HLWKHU 0LOOHU¶V QRU +D\QHV¶ WULDO FRXQVHO FRQVLGHUHG RU
DGYLVHG WKHLU UHVSHFWLYH FOLHQWV WKDW the prosecutor could
appeal the imposition of a juvenile sentence.
   Miller and Haynes petitioned for writs of habeas corpus,
and the federal district court concluded that the failure of
their defense attorneys to inform them of the prosecutor's
right to appeal, particularly in light of their youth at the time
of the pleas, constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. 7KH
FRXUWIXUWKHUFRQFOXGHGWKDWDFRQWUDU\GHWHUPLQDWLRQRQWKH
IDFWV DQG WKH ODZ E\ WKH 0LFKLJDQ &RXUW RI $SSHDOV
FRQVWLWXWHGDQXQUHDVRQDEOHDSSOLFDWLRQRIFOHDUO\HVWDEOLVKHG
IHGHUDOODZDVGHWHUPLQHGE\WKH8QLWHG6WDWHV6XSUHPH&RXUW
LQ:LOOLDPVY7D\ORU529 U.S. 362 (2000)+LOOY/RFNKDUW
474 U.S. 52 (1985DQG6WULFNODQGY:DVKLQJWRQ466 U.S.
668 (1984)  $FFRUGLQJO\ WKH FRXUW separately JUDQWHG
0LOOHU¶VDQG+D\QHV¶SHWLWLRQVIRUZULWVRIKDEHDVFRUSXVRQ
WKHJURXQGRILQHIIHFWLYHDVVLVWDQFHRIFRXQVHO7KHZDUGHQV
DSSHDO$IWHUDFDUHIXOUHYLHZRIWKHUHFRUGVLQWKHWZRFDVHV
ZH$)),50WKHGLVWULFWFRXUW

    
     The Honorable Denise Page Hood, United States District Court
Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan.
    
      The court published only one opinion. See Haynes v. Burke, 115
F.Supp.2d 813 (E.D.Mich 2000). The other opinion is unpublished, see
Miller v. Straub, No. 98-CV-74655-DT (E.D. Mich. Aug. 31, 2000), but
the court analyzed the two cases similarly. ,Q ERWK FDVHV WKH GLVWULFW FRXUW
RUGHUHG WKDW XQOHVV 0LFKLJDQ WRRN DFWLRQ ZLWKLQ  GD\V WR DIIRUG 0LOOHU
DQG +D\QHV QHZ WULDOV WKH\ FRXOG DSSO\ IRU ZULWV RUGHULQJ WKHLU IRUWKZLWK
UHOHDVH IURP FXVWRG\
       0LOOHUHWDOY6WUDXEHWDO         1RV          1RV             0LOOHUHWDOY6WUDXEHWDO     

                        ,%$&.*5281'                                      PHDQVWKDWLWGLGQRWFRUUHFWO\LGHQWLI\DQGDSSO\6WULFNODQGDV
                                                                            WKHJRYHUQLQJIHGHUDOUXOH%XWHYHQLIZHZHUHWRSDUVHWKH
  Kermit Haynes and Cortez Miller are two of six youths                    WZRSDUWVRI6WULFNODQGLQWKLVZD\ZHZRXOGQRWFRQGXFWD
FKDUJHGE\WKHVWDWHRI0LFKLJDQZLWKWKH PXUGHURI                   IXOOGHQRYRUHYLHZEXWUDWKHUD³LQGHSHQGHQW´UHYLHZDVODLG
%HQMDPLQ*UDYHO7KHVWDWHFKDUJHG+D\QHVDQG0LOOHUHDFK                  RXWLQRXUUHFHQWFDVHRI+DUULVY6WRYDOO)G
ZLWK ILUVW GHJUHH IHORQ\ PXUGHU, assault with intent to rob             WK &LU   7KHUH ZH VDLG LQ D VLPLODU FDVH  ³7KDW
while armed, and possession of a firearm during commission                  LQGHSHQGHQWUHYLHZKRZHYHULVQRWDIXOOGHQRYRUHYLHZRI
of a felony.                                                                WKHFODLPVEXWUHPDLQVGHIHUHQWLDOEHFDXVHWKHFRXUWFDQQRW
                                                                            JUDQWUHOLHIXQOHVVWKH VWDWHFRXUW¶VUHVXOWLVQRWLQNHHSLQJ
A. Miller’s Plea                                                            ZLWK WKH VWULFWXUHV RI WKH $('3$´  ,ELG  7KXV HYHQ LQ
                                                                            FRQGXFWLQJDQLQGHSHQGHQWUHYLHZZHPXVWGHWHUPLQHPRUH
  On March 23, 1990, Miller pled guilty before Chief Judge                  WKDQVLPSO\WKDWZHEHOLHYHWKHVWDWHFRXUWZDVZURQJLQLWV
Roberson of the Recorder’s Court for the City of Detroit. He                XOWLPDWHRXWFRPH
was fifteen years old at the time. At the plea hearing, the
court questioned Miller as to whether he understood that if he                 $VWKHDERYHDQDO\VLVRI6WULFNODQG:LOOLDPVDQG&RQH
pled guilty, his "only hope" to avoid mandatory life                        VKRZV ZH FDQ E\ QR PHDQV WHUP WKH MXGJPHQW RI WKH
imprisonment lay in convincing the court to treat him as a                  0LFKLJDQ&RXUWRI$SSHDOVXQUHDVRQDEOH7KHMXGJPHQWLV
juvenile. Miller answered that he understood. Miller’s                      SHUKDSV GHEDWDEOH LI ZH LJQRUH 6WULFNODQG¶V FOHDU
mother, who was present at the plea hearing, stated that                    UHTXLUHPHQWV ZH PLJKW VD\ LW ZDV LQFRUUHFW XQGHU QR
Miller’s plea had been discussed with her and that she                      FLUFXPVWDQFHVFDQZHVD\LWZDVXQUHDVRQDEOH
understood that the judge might sentence her son as a juvenile
or as an adult. The prosecutor advised the court that his
office would request that the court sentence Miller as an adult.
 The court then questioned Miller. Miller affirmed that he
was making his plea freely, understandingly, and voluntarily.

    
     7ZR RI WKH IRXU RWKHU ER\V IDFHG WULDO RQ FKDUJHV RI ILUVW GHJUHH
IHORQ\ PXUGHU DQG     DVVDXOW ZLWK LQWHQW WR URE ZKLOH DUPHG WKH\ ZHUH
IRXQG QRW JXLOW\   7ZR ER\V SOHG JXLOW\ WR VHFRQG GHJUHH PXUGHU DQG
DVVDXOW ZLWK LQWHQW WR URE ZKLOH DUPHG 7KH\ ZHUH VHQWHQFHG DV MXYHQLOHV
7KRVH MXYHQLOH VHQWHQFHV ZHUH XSKHOG E\ WKH 0LFKLJDQ &RXUW RI $SSHDOV
3HRSOH Y %URZQ     1:G  0LFK $SS 

    
      8QGHU 0LFKLJDQ ODZ DW WKDW WLPH WKH WULDO FRXUW KDG GLVFUHWLRQ WR
GHWHUPLQH ZKHWKHU MXYHQLOHV FRQYLFWHG RI ILUVW GHJUHH PXUGHU VKRXOG EH
VHQWHQFHG DV MXYHQLOHV RU DV DGXOWV 6HH 0LFK &RPS /DZV $QQ  
 7KH 0LFKLJDQ OHJLVODWXUH DPHQGHG WKH VWDWXWH LQ  WR UHPRYH
WKLV GLVFUHWLRQ 6HH 0LFK 3XE $FW  1R  $OO MXYHQLOHV
FRQYLFWHG RI ILUVW GHJUHH PXUGHU DUH QRZ PDQGDWRULO\ VHQWHQFHG DV DGXOWV
6HH 0LFK &RPS /DZV $QQ  J 
    0LOOHUHWDOY6WUDXEHWDO        1RV         1RV              0LOOHUHWDOY6WUDXEHWDO        

SRVVLELOLW\ RI D JRYHUQPHQW DSSHDO  $OO RI WKH FRXQVHO        He acknowledged an understanding of the various trial rights
LQYROYHG QRWHG WKDW WKH\ GLG QRW FRQWHPSODWH WKDW VXFK DQ      he was foregoing by pleading guilty. Miller affirmed his
DSSHDO FRXOG RFFXU RU WKDW LW ZRXOG EH VXFFHVVIXO  ,Q WKH   understanding that first degree murder was punishable by a
0LOOHUFDVHRQWKLVDSSHDO0LOOHU¶VFRXQVHODQGFOLHQWZHUH          maximum sentence of life imprisonment without parole. The
LQFRXUWZKHQWKHSURVHFXWRUVDLGWKDWWKHVWDWHZRXOGDSSHDO          court described the situation to Miller: "the only hope that
DQGVSHFLILFDOO\WHVWLILHGWKDWKHIHOWWKDWWKHFKDQFHVRIVXFK        you [have] in this plea is if I decide to treat you as a juvenile
DQDSSHDOVXFFHHGLQJRQHKDGQHYHUEHHQWULHGLQ0LFKLJDQ             for the purpose of disposition. You heard [the prosecutor] say
WRWKLVSRLQWZHUHVXIILFLHQWO\ORZWKDWLWGLGQRWDIIHFWWKHLU      that they are going to want to hold a lengthy disposition
MXGJPHQW                                                             hearing, do you understand that?" Miller stated that he
                                                                        understood, and specifically acknowledged that he was
   -XGJH*LOPDQ¶VLQWHUHVWLQJPDWKHPDWLFDODQDO\VLVDWSDJH             "taking that chance."
EHJLQVWRDGGUHVVWKHFRUUHFWLQTXLU\EXWGRHVQRWJRIDU
HQRXJK7KHUHOHYDQWTXHVWLRQLVZKHWKHUWKHXOWLPDWHDGYLFH              The court then questioned Miller briefly as to the factual
ZDV D VWUDWHJ\ ZLWKLQ WKH EURDG ERXQGV RI SURIHVVLRQDO          basis for his plea. Miller stated that he was part of a group
FRPSHWHQFH5HODWHGO\ZHDVNZKHWKHUWKHGHFUHDVHLQWKH              that decided to steal a car. Sometime before the crime he
SUREDELOLW\ RI D VXFFHVVIXO RXWFRPH GXH WR SURVHFXWRULDO         gave Haynes a gun knowing that Haynes planned to use it to
DSSHDOUHQGHUVFUHGLEOHSHWLWLRQHUV¶DVVHUWLRQVWKDWWKH\ZRXOG         steal a car. Miller acknowledged knowing the inherent
KDYHJLYHQXSWKHLUFKDQFHDWDMXYHQLOHVHQWHQFHEHIRUH-XGJH          danger to life when a car is taken at gunpoint.
5REHUVRQ7KHRQHFRXQVHOZKRWHVWLILHGVSHFLILFDOO\WKRXJKW
WKDWWKHFKDQFHVRIWKHVWDWHVXFFHHGLQJRQDSSHDOZHUHIDLUO\            Over the course of the next year, Chief Judge Roberson
VPDOODQGZHKDYHQREDVLVIRUGLVFRXQWLQJWKDWMXGJPHQW              held several hearings RQWKHGLVSRVLWLRQRI0LOOHU¶VVHQWHQFH
7KXVLIFRXQVHOFDOFXODWHGWKHFKDQFHVRI-XGJH5REHUVRQ¶V             2Q )HEUXDU\   0LOOHU¶V FRXQVHO PDGH FORVLQJ
VHQWHQFLQJ WKH GHIHQGDQWV DV MXYHQLOHV DW  ZKHQ WKH         DUJXPHQWVWRWKHFRXUWDWWKHILQDOKHDULQJLQ0LOOHU¶VFDVH$W
UHDOLW\WXUQHGRXWWREHDQGEHOLHYHGWKHFKDQFHRI              WKDW KHDULQJ WKH SURVHFXWRU DQQRXQFHG WKDW LI WKH FRXUW
VXFFHVVRQDSSHDOE\WKHVWDWHWREHFRQWLQJHQWRQWKH             VHQWHQFHG0LOOHUDVDMXYHQLOHWKHSURVHFXWLRQZRXOGDSSHDO
MXYHQLOH VHQWHQFLQJ EHORZ WKHQ WKH FKDQFHV RI XOWLPDWH          On June 17, 1991, the court sentenced Miller to confinement
VXFFHVVZRXOGKDYHVKUXQNIURPWR7KLVPLJKW                  in a juvenile institution until age twenty-one.
VWLOO ORRN H[WUHPHO\ JRRG DV RSSRVHG WR D YHU\ ODUJH
SUREDELOLW\RIFRQYLFWLRQRIILUVWGHJUHHPXUGHUDQGDVHQWHQFH         B. Haynes’ Plea
RIOLIHZLWKRXWSDUROH
                                                                          On March 27, 1990, Haynes pled guilty to all charges
  :KLOHP\DVVLJQLQJRIYDOXHVLVMXVWDVVSHFXODWLYHDV-XGJH          against him, also before Chief Judge Roberson. He was
*LOPDQ¶V LW GRHV HPSKDVL]H WKDW WKH SURSHU LQTXLU\ IRU
HIIHFWLYHDVVLVWDQFHRIFRXQVHOVKRXOGEHWKHRYHUDOOVWUDWHJ\
HPSOR\HG,WGRHVQRWDSSHDUWRPHWKDWZHFDQSURSHUO\VD\               
XQGHUWKH$('3$VWDQGDUGWKDWWKHVWDWHFRXUWVXQUHDVRQDEO\                  $  DPHQGPHQW WR 0LFKLJDQ VWDWXWRU\ ODZ JUDQWHG Michigan

DSSOLHG6WULFNODQG                                                     prosecutors an appeal of right from "[a] final judgment or final order of
                                                                        the . . . recorder’s court" in criminal cases. Mich. Comp. Laws Ann.
                                                                        § 770.12 (as amended, Mich. Pub. Act 1988 No. 66) ,Q 1RYHPEHU 
  )LQDOO\,GRQRWDJUHHZLWK-XGJH*LOPDQWKDWWKHIDLOXUHRI         WKH 0LFKLJDQ &RXUW RI $SSHDOV SXEOLVKHG D GHFLVLRQ LQ ZKLFK LW FRQVWUXHG
WKHVWDWHFRXUWWRGLVFXVVWKHSUHMXGLFHSURQJRI6WULFNODQG            WKH DPHQGPHQW WR DOORZ SURVHFXWRUV WR DSSHDO FULPLQDO VHQWHQFHV DV RI
                                                                        ULJKW 3HRSOH Y 5H\QROGV  1:G   0LFK $SS 
    0LOOHUHWDOY6WUDXEHWDO      1RV       1RV            0LOOHUHWDOY6WUDXEHWDO     

sixteen years old at the time. At the plea hearing, his counsel,     0RUHRYHU$('3$LPSRVHVDGGLWLRQDOFRQVWUDLQWVRQWKH
Wilfred Rice, stated that he had discussed the matter with         DELOLW\RIIHGHUDOFRXUWVWRJUDQWDZULWRIKDEHDVFRUSXV,Q
Haynes and his family and that Haynes, with the acquiescence       RUGHUWRPHHWWKHJDWHNHHSHUVWDQGDUGVVHWIRUWKE\$('3$
of his father, wanted to enter a plea of guilty as charged. Rice    86&  G IRU WKH LVVXDQFH RI ZULWV RI KDEHDV
stated that Haynes understood that the court could sentence        FRUSXV WKH VWDWH FRXUW DGMXGLFDWLRQ RI WKH FODLP WKDW LV
him as an adult or as a juvenile, and affirmed that Haynes         FKDOOHQJHG RQ FROODWHUDO DSSHDO PXVW KDYH UHVXOWHG LQ D
understood that the prosecutor would attempt to convince           GHFLVLRQWKDWZDV³FRQWUDU\WRRULQYROYHGDQXQUHDVRQDEOH
Chief Judge Roberson that Haynes should be sentenced as an         DSSOLFDWLRQRIFOHDUO\HVWDEOLVKHG)HGHUDOODZDVGHWHUPLQHG
adult.                                                             E\WKH6XSUHPH&RXUWRIWKH8QLWHG6WDWHV´,ELG&RQH
                                                                   6&WDW
   The court questioned Haynes directly about whether he
understood that, if he pled guilty, "the only option you have        7KH6XSUHPH&RXUWKHOGLQ:LOOLDPVY7D\ORU86
in this case, the only escape you have in terms of mandatory         WKDW ³>W@KH PRVW LPSRUWDQW SRLQW LV WKDW DQ
life, [is] if the prosecution can’t convince me to treat you as    XQUHDVRQDEOHDSSOLFDWLRQRIIHGHUDOODZLVGLIIHUHQWIURPDQ
an adult." Haynes stated that he understood.                       LQFRUUHFWDSSOLFDWLRQRIIHGHUDOODZ´,GDWHPSKDVLVLQ
                                                                   RULJLQDO$VWDWHFRXUWGHFLVLRQFDQLQYROYHDQXQUHDVRQDEOH
   Haynes stated that he had talked to his parents about his       DSSOLFDWLRQRI8QLWHG6WDWHV6XSUHPH&RXUWSUHFHGHQWLQRQO\
guilty plea. He affirmed that he was not being coerced into        WZRZD\V)LUVWDVWDWHFRXUWPLJKWLGHQWLI\WKHFRUUHFWOHJDO
his plea and that he made his plea freely, understandingly, and    UXOHEXWXQUHDVRQDEO\DSSO\LWWRWKHIDFWV6HFRQGDVWDWH
voluntarily. He also affirmed an awareness of the various          FRXUWGHFLVLRQPLJKWXQUHDVRQDEO\H[WHQGD6XSUHPH&RXUW
trial rights he was foregoing by pleading guilty.                  OHJDOSUHFHGHQWWRDQHZFRQWH[WZKHUHLWVKRXOGQRWDSSO\RU
                                                                   XQUHDVRQDEO\UHIXVHWRH[WHQGWKDWSULQFLSOHWRDQHZFRQWH[W
  The court then questioned Haynes briefly about the factual       ZKHUH LW VKRXOG DSSO\ ,G DW   7KH 6XSUHPH &RXUW
basis for his plea. Haynes stated that other boys in the group     UHFHQWO\ UHLWHUDWHG WKDW WKH :LOOLDPV REMHFWLYH
pulled a tree branch into the street to force cars to stop. When   XQUHDVRQDEOHQHVV VWDQGDUG DSSOLHV WR WKH LQHIIHFWLYH
the victim, Gravel, stopped his car in front of the tree branch,   DVVLVWDQFHRIFRXQVHOVHWWLQJ&RQH6&WDW,Q
Haynes ran out to the car intending to steal it. He was            &RQH WKH &RXUW KHOG WKDW ZKHQ D VWDWH FRXUW FRUUHFWO\
carrying a handgun Miller had given him. As Haynes                 LGHQWLILHVWKH6WULFNODQGVWDQGDUGDVDSSOLFDEOHDQGPDNHVD
approached the car, it pulled away and he fired at the car.        UHDVRQDEOH MXGJPHQW UHJDUGLQJ DWWRUQH\ SHUIRUPDQFH DQG
Haynes specifically admitted that he shot at the car as part of    SUHMXGLFHXQGHUWKHFRUUHFWVWDQGDUGDIHGHUDOFRXUWODFNVWKH
his attempt to steal it.                                           SRZHU WR JUDQW D ZULW RI KDEHDV FRUSXV FRQWUDYHQLQJ WKDW
                                                                   GHWHUPLQDWLRQ  ,G DW   , ZRXOG QRW KROG WKDW WKH
  Over the course of the next year, Chief Judge Roberson           0LFKLJDQFRXUWZDVREMHFWLYHO\XQUHDVRQDEOHLQLWVMXGJPHQW
held several hearings on the disposition of Haynes’ sentence.      HYHQZHUH,WRGLVDJUHHZLWKLWDVWKHPDMRULW\GRHV
On August 28, 1991, the court sentenced Haynes to
confinement in a juvenile institution until age twenty-one.           -XGJH*LOPDQ¶VFRQFXUUHQFHPDNHVDQXPEHURILQWHUHVWLQJ
                                                                   SRLQWVWKDWGHVHUYHDEULHIUHVSRQVH&RQWUDU\WRWKHVWDWHPHQW
                                                                   DWSDJH,KDGWKRXJKWWKDW,GLGQRWHLQWKHILUVWSDUDJUDSK
                                                                   RIWKLVGLVVHQWDQGGLGQRWGLVSXWHWKHREYLRXVIDFWVLQWKH
                                                                   UHFRUG WKDW FRXQVHO GLG QRW LQIRUP WKHLU FOLHQWV RI WKH
    0LOOHUHWDOY6WUDXEHWDO        1RV        1RV              0LOOHUHWDOY6WUDXEHWDO        

   $VIRUWKHSUHMXGLFHHOHPHQWRI6WULFNODQGLWVHHPVFOHDU         C. Post-plea Events
WKDWHYHQZLWKNQRZOHGJHRIWKHSRVVLELOLW\RISURVHFXWRULDO
DSSHDOSHWLWLRQHUVZRXOGVWLOOKDYHSOHGJXLOW\0LOOHUZDV            After Chief Judge Roberson ordered that Miller and Haynes
H[SUHVVO\LQIRUPHGDWKLVVHQWHQFLQJKHDULQJRQ)HEUXDU\          be sentenced as juveniles, the prosecutor appealed each
WKDWWKHSURVHFXWLRQLQWHQGHGWRDSSHDOKLVVHQWHQFHDV          sentence. The state court of appeals reversed on each
DMXYHQLOH0LOOHUDQGKLVDWWRUQH\QRWLFHGDQGGLVFXVVHGWKH         defendant and remanded for imposition of the adult sentence:
SURVHFXWLRQ¶V FODLP WKDW LW FRXOG DSSHDO EXW IHOW WKDW WKH   mandatory life imprisonment without parole on the first
SURVHFXWLRQZRXOGEHXQVXFFHVVIXORQDSSHDODMXGJPHQWWKDW           degree murder charge. People v. Miller, 503 N.W.2d 89
ZDVQRWREYLRXVO\XQUHDVRQDEOHJLYHQWKHVWDWHRIWKHODZDW           (Mich. App. 1993); People v. Haynes, 502 N.W.2d 758
WKDWWLPH0LOOHUGLGQRWDWWHPSWWRZLWKGUDZKLVJXLOW\SOHD         (Mich. App. 1993). The state supreme court denied the
DVRIWKHVHQWHQFLQJKHDULQJ+D\QHVGHVSLWHWKHIDFWWKDWKLV       defendants’ applications for leave to appeal those results.
FRGHIHQGDQW KDG EHHQ ZDUQHG RI WKH SRVVLELOLW\ RI
SURVHFXWRULDO DSSHDO DV RI )HEUXDU\  GLG QRW PRYH WR         On remand before Chief Judge Roberson, the defendants
ZLWKGUDZ KLV SOHD GXULQJ WKH ILYH PRQWKV EHIRUH KLV RZQ       moved to withdraw their guilty pleas and for evidentiary
VHQWHQFLQJRQ$XJXVW1HLWKHUSHWLWLRQHUDWWHPSWHG           hearings on those motions. Haynes and Miller each alleged
WR ZLWKGUDZ KLV JXLOW\ SOHD DIWHU WKH SURVHFXWLRQ DFWXDOO\     that their guilty pleas had been involuntary due to ineffective
DSSHDOHGUDWKHUWKH\DUJXHGWKHLUFDVHRQWKHPHULWVEHIRUH          assistance of trial counsel. They asserted, among other
WKH &RXUW RI $SSHDOV  7KLV PDNHV VHQVH HYHQ ZLWK WKH       things, that their attorneys’ failure to inform them that the
SRVVLELOLW\RISURVHFXWRULDODSSHDOWKHFKDQFHWREHVHQWHQFHG        prosecutor could appeal the imposition of a juvenile sentence
DVDMXYHQLOHZDVWKHLURQO\RSWLRQVKRUWRIWULDO3HWLWLRQHUV       constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. The court
ZDQWHG D MXYHQLOH VHQWHQFH QRW D QHZ WULDO  3HWLWLRQHUV    granted the motions for evidentiary hearings.
WKURXJK FRXQVHO JDPHG WKH V\VWHP DQG DWWHPSWHG WR
ZLWKGUDZWKHLUJXLOW\SOHDVRQO\DIWHUWKHLUMXYHQLOHVHQWHQFHV          The prosecutor applied to the state court of appeals for
ZHUHUHMHFWHGE\WKH&RXUWRI$SSHDOV7KLVSRVWFRQYLFWLRQ           leave to file an interlocutory appeal of the orders granting
VWUDWHJ\JDYHSHWLWLRQHUVWZRELWHVDWWKHDSSOHWKDWWKH\QRZ        evidentiary hearings. The Michigan Court of Appeals denied
DUJXHWKH\ZRXOGKDYHJLYHQXSWKHLUILUVWDQGH[DQWHPRUH           the application. The Michigan Supreme Court, in lieu of
OLNHO\ELWHEHFDXVHRIWKHSRVVLELOLW\RISURVHFXWRULDODSSHDO        granting leave to appeal, vacated the trial court’s orders
GHILHVFUHGHQFH                                                       granting the evidentiary hearings and directed that Haynes
                                                                       and Miller be sentenced "forthwith" as adults "without
   3HWLWLRQHUVZHUHYHU\DZDUHRIWKHSRVVLEOHFRQVHTXHQFHV            prejudice to subsequent consideration of the motion[s] to
RISOHDGLQJ JXLOW\WRILUVWGHJUHHPXUGHU-XGJH5REHUVRQ            withdraw the plea[s] of guilty." People v. Miller, 527
WROG WKHP EHIRUH WKH\ SOHG WKDW WKH\ FRXOG SRVVLEO\ EH      N.W.2d 513 (Mich. 1994); People v. Haynes, 527 N.W.2d
VHQWHQFHGDVDGXOWVDQGWKHUHIRUHEHVXEMHFWWRDPDQGDWRU\           512-13 (Mich. 1994).
OLIHVHQWHQFHDVDUHVXOWRIWKHLUJXLOW\SOHDV7KDWLVH[DFWO\
ZKDW KDSSHQHG DIWHU WKH SURVHFXWRULDO DSSHDO  3HWLWLRQHUV
NQHZWKHULVNDQGWRRNWKHLUFKDQFHV7KHIDFWWKDWWKH\GLG
QRW FRUUHFWO\ DVVHVV ZKHWKHU RU QRW WKH\ DFWXDOO\ ZRXOG EH
VHQWHQFHGDVDGXOWVLVZKROO\LUUHOHYDQW7KHSOHDZDVPDGH               
                                                                            7KH SURVHFXWRU DSSHDOHG +D\QHV¶ VHQWHQFH E\ ULJKW    7KH DSSHDO LQ
YROXQWDULO\ DQG ZLWK IXOO NQRZOHGJH RI WKH SRVVLEOH             0LOOHU¶V FDVH ZDV QRW DV D PDWWHU RI ULJKW EHFDXVH WKH SURVHFXWRU GLG QRW

FRQVHTXHQFHV                                                          WLPHO\ ILOH WKH DSSHDO +RZHYHU WKH 0LFKLJDQ &RXUW RI $SSHDOV JUDQWHG
                                                                       WKH SURVHFXWRU¶V DSSOLFDWLRQ IRU OHDYH WR DSSHDO
        0LOOHUHWDOY6WUDXEHWDO        1RV         1RV             0LOOHUHWDOY6WUDXEHWDO     

  On December 19, 1994, Chief Judge Roberson imposed                                                BBBBBBBBBBBBB
sentences of life imprisonment without possibility of parole.
The court subsequently held separate evidentiary hearings on                                          ',66(17
Miller’s and Haynes’ motions to withdraw their guilty pleas.                                        BBBBBBBBBBBBB
  Haynes was the only witness at his evidentiary hearing.                    %2**6 &LUFXLW -XGJH GLVVHQWLQJ  , GLVDJUHH ZLWK WKH
+D\QHVWHVWLILHGWKDWKHWDONHGZLWKKLVFRXQVHO:LOIUHG5LFH            PDMRULW\¶V DQDO\VLV DQG ZRXOG UHYHUVH WKH JUDQW RI KDEHDV
WZLFHLQWKHWKUHHZHHNVEHIRUHKLVJXLOW\SOHD(DFKYLVLW               FRUSXV,WKHUHIRUHUHVSHFWIXOO\GLVVHQW7KH0LFKLJDQ&RXUW
ODVWHGOHVVWKDQWKLUW\PLQXWHVDQGHDFKFHQWHUHGRQ5LFH¶V                RI $SSHDOV GHFLGHG WKDW LQ WKLV FDVH D IDLOXUH WR LQIRUP D
DGYLFHWKDW+D\QHVSOHDGJXLOW\EHIRUH&KLHI-XGJH5REHUVRQ               FULPLQDOGHIHQGDQWEHIRUHDJXLOW\SOHDWKDWWKHSURVHFXWLRQ
+D\QHVWHVWLILHGWKDWKHZDVKHVLWDQWWRSOHDGJXLOW\EXWWKDW            PD\KDYHDULJKWWRDSSHDOKLVEHLQJVHQWHQFHGDVDMXYHQLOH
5LFHUHSHDWHGO\WROGKLPWKDW it was in his interest to plead              GRHV QRW FRQVWLWXWH LQHIIHFWLYH DVVLVWDQFH RI FRXQVHO  7R
before Chief Judge Roberson, where he would "have great                    VXFFHHGRQDFODLPRILQHIIHFWLYHDVVLVWDQFHRIFRXQVHOWKH
chances of being sentenced as a juvenile."                                 SHWLWLRQHU PXVW VKRZ  GHILFLHQW SHUIRUPDQFH E\ WKH
                                                                           DWWRUQH\DQGSUHMXGLFH6WULFNODQGY:DVKLQJWRQ
   Haynes testified that Rice never told him that, even if Chief           86    /HJLWLPDWH WULDO WDFWLFV DUH H[SUHVVO\
Judge Roberson sentenced him as a juvenile, the prosecutor                 H[FOXGHGIURPWKHGHILQLWLRQRIGHILFLHQWSHUIRUPDQFH%HOO
could still appeal that sentence and an appellate court could              Y&RQH6&W7RHVWDEOLVKSUHMXGLFH
impose an adult sentence of life without parole. Haynes                    DIWHUKDYLQJSOHGJXLOW\WKHSOHDGHUPXVWVKRZDUHDVRQDEOH
stated that he would not have pled guilty had he known this.               SUREDELOLW\ WKDW KH ZRXOG QRW KDYH SOHG KDG KH UHFHLYHG
                                                                           FRPSHWHQWDGYLFH+LOOY/RFNKDUW86,Q
    Q             So what is your understanding if you plead               WKLV FDVH SHWLWLRQHUV KDYH HVWDEOLVKHG QHLWKHU HOHPHQW RI
                  guilty and you made it through the sentencing            6WULFNODQG
                  hearing and you could convince the judge to
                  sentence you as a juvenile, did you think                  $W WULDO SHWLWLRQHUV IDFHG QHDUFHUWDLQ FRQYLFWLRQ  7KH
                  there was anything after that?                           GHIHQVHV WKDW WKH\ ZRXOG KDYH DVVHUWHG DW WULDO ZHUH LQ
                                                                           HVVHQFH YDJXH KRSHV IRU MXU\ QXOOLILFDWLRQ  7KHLU GHIHQVH
    [Haynes] No. Besides the fact that I’d be going to [a                  FRXQVHONQHZKRZHYHUWKDWWKHUHZDVDYHU\UHDOKRSHWKDW
             juvenile facility].                                           WKH\ FRXOG EH VHQWHQFHG DV  MXYHQLOHV LI WKH\ SOHG JXLOW\
                                                                           EHFDXVHRIWKHVHQWHQFLQJKDELWVRIWKHSDUWLFXODUMXGJHLQWKH
                  ....                                                     FDVH&RXQVHOV¶SHUIRUPDQFHZDVQRWGHILFLHQWLQGHHGWKH
                                                                           LGHDIRUWKHJDPEOHVSUDQJIURPGHIHQVHFRXQVHOV¶VXSHULRU
    Q             Did you have any idea that the prosection                DQG LQWLPDWH NQRZOHGJH RI WKH FRXUW  7KHLU DWWRUQH\V
                  [sic] had any other option besides that                  H[SODLQHGWKHUDPLILFDWLRQVRIWKHGHFLVLRQWRSHWLWLRQHUVYHU\
                  hearing that they had in front of the Judge?             FDUHIXOO\  3HWLWLRQHUV¶ SDUHQWV ZHUH LQYROYHG LQ WKH
                                                                           GHFLVLRQPDNLQJ SURFHVV  7KH GHFLVLRQ WR SOHDG ZDV
                                                                           FDOFXODWHGYROXQWDU\DQGLQIRUPHGWKLVLVSUHFLVHO\WKHVRUW
                                                                           RI FRPSHWHQW UHSUHVHQWDWLRQ WKDW LV H[FOXGHG IURP WKH
     
                                                                           6WULFNODQGGHILQLWLRQRIGHILFLHQWSHUIRUPDQFH6WULFNODQG
        +D\QHV¶ WULDO FRXQVHO :LOIUHG 5LFH GLHG EHIRUH +D\QHV PRYHG WR   86DW&RQH6&WDW
ZLWKGUDZ KLV SOHD
    0LOOHUHWDOY6WUDXEHWDO      1RV        1RV           0LOOHUHWDOY6WUDXEHWDO     

WKDW EXW IRU FRXQVHO¶V HUURUV KH ZRXOG QRW KDYH SOHDGHG     [Haynes] No.
JXLOW\DQGZRXOGKDYHLQVLVWHGRQJRLQJWRWULDO´6WULFNODQG
86DW³$UHDVRQDEOHSUREDELOLW\LVDSUREDELOLW\          Haynes J.A. at 176-77.
VXIILFLHQWWRXQGHUPLQHFRQILGHQFHLQWKHRXWFRPH´
                                                                       Haynes also stated that he was innocent of first degree
                                                                     murder because he did not intend to harm anyone. Contrary
                                                                     to his testimony at the original plea hearing, Haynes denied
                                                                     shooting at the car. He claimed that at the plea hearing he
                                                                     was "under advisement" of his attorney to say that he shot at
                                                                     the car.
                                                                       We turn to Miller’s further proceedings. At the evidentiary
                                                                     hearing on Miller’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea,
                                                                     Miller’s trial counsel, Charles Lusby, testified. He stated that
                                                                     he only did trial work and never handled appeals. Lusby
                                                                     testified that he considered abandonment to be a possible
                                                                     defense for Miller because when Miller gave the gun to
                                                                     Haynes he was deferring to the older boys in the group. He
                                                                     testified that Miller "practically totally rel[ied]" on his advice,
                                                                     and that he convinced Miller’s parents, who also relied on
                                                                     him, that pleading guilty was in Miller’s best interest.
                                                                       Lusby stated that Miller was "reluctant" to plead guilty, but
                                                                     that he "prevailed upon him," by telling him he likely would
                                                                     be sentenced as a juvenile. Lusby testified that, based upon
                                                                     his familiarity with the juvenile sentencing process, he
                                                                     believed Chief Judge Roberson would sentence Miller as a
                                                                     juvenile. Lusby considered his advice that Miller plead guilty
                                                                     to first degree murder to be "extraordinary."
                                                                       Lusby admitted that his considerations in formulating this
                                                                     advice did not include any factor beyond what the trial court
                                                                     would do.
                                                                       Q            In formulating your advice to Mr. Miller, did
                                                                                    you take into account the fact [that] the
                                                                                    prosecutor had since I believe 1988 the right
                                                                                    to appeal a sentence?
                                                                       [Lusby]      No, I did not.
    0LOOHUHWDOY6WUDXEHWDO    1RV       1RV             0LOOHUHWDOY6WUDXEHWDO     

  Q           Did you stop to consider that, did it occur to      GLVVHQWXQGHUHVWLPDWHVWKHVLJQLILFDQFHRIDSRVVLEOHDSSHDOLQ
              you?                                                DQ\ FDOFXODWLRQ WKDW WKH SHWLWLRQHUV RU WKHLU FRXQVHO PDGH
                                                                  0LOOHUDQG+D\QHVPLJKWKDYHEHOLHYHGWKDWWKH\KDGVD\DQ
  [Lusby]     That didn’t occur to me at all.                     FKDQFHRIEHLQJVHQWHQFHGDVMXYHQLOHVE\WKHSDUWLFXODU
                                                                  WULDOMXGJHEHIRUHZKRPWKH\SOHGJXLOW\,IWKH\KDGEHHQ
  Q           Did you discuss that possible risk with Mr.         DGYLVHGWKDWWKHVWDWHFRXOGDSSHDOKRZHYHUWKH\PLJKWKDYH
              Miller?                                             HYDOXDWHGWKHRGGVRIWKHWULDOMXGJH¶VGHWHUPLQDWLRQVEHLQJ
                                                                  VXVWDLQHG RQ DSSHDO DV RQO\   7KH ULVN RI WKH WULDO
  [Lusby]     I discussed a lot of things with him, but that      MXGJH¶VVHQWHQFLQJGHFLVLRQVEHLQJUHYHUVHGRQDSSHDOZRXOG
              was not one of them. It didn’t occur to me          LQWKLVH[DPSOHUHGXFHWKHXOWLPDWHOLNHOLKRRGRI0LOOHUDQG
              that the prosecutor would do it, nor that the       +D\QHVEHLQJVHQWHQFHGDVMXYHQLOHVIURPWRRQO\
              appellate court would reverse that decision.
                                                                    :HDUHXQDEOHRIFRXUVHWRGHWHUPLQHWKHH[DFWRGGVWKDW
Miller J.A. at 254-55.                                            0LOOHUDQG+D\QHVEHOLHYHGWKDWWKH\IDFHGSULRUWRSOHDGLQJ
                                                                  JXLOW\EXWWKHDERYHH[DPSOHLOOXVWUDWHVWKHVLJQLILFDQFHRI
   Lusby also testified that he recalled the prosecutor stating   IDLOLQJWRFRQVLGHUWKHSRVVLELOLW\RIWKHVWDWHDSSHDOLQJ7KH
in his closing argument at the sentencing hearing that he         IDFW WKDW 0LOOHU DQG +D\QHV ZHUH DZDUH RI WKH PD[LPXP
would appeal if Miller received a juvenile sentence. Lusby        SHQDOW\ WKDW WKH\ IDFHG GRHV QRW WKHUHIRUH QHJDWH WKH
explained that Miller "was struck" by the prosecutor’s            VLJQLILFDQFH RI WKH LQIRUPDWLRQ WKDW QHLWKHU WKH\ QRU WKHLU
statement, but "I think I told him I didn’t think [the            FRXQVHOFRQVLGHUHG3HUKDSV0LOOHUDQG+D\QHVZRXOGKDYH
prosecutor] would be successful."                                 SOHG JXLOW\ HYHQ LI WKH\ KDG NQRZQ WKDW WKH WULDO MXGJH¶V
                                                                  VHQWHQFLQJGHFLVLRQVZHUHQRWWKHRQO\KXUGOHWKDWWKH\KDGWR
  Miller also testified. He stated that when Lusby advised        RYHUFRPH LQ RUGHU WR EH VHQWHQFHG DV MXYHQLOHV  %XW WKH\
him to plead guilty, Lusby did not tell him that the prosecutor   ZHUH HQWLWOHG WR EH DGYLVHG RI DOO WKH ULVNV WKDW WKH\ IDFHG
could appeal and that the court of appeals had the authority to   EHIRUHFKRRVLQJWRSOHDGJXLOW\DQGIRUHJRLQJWKHLUULJKWVWR
overturn Chief Judge Roberson’s decision. Miller stated that,     MXU\WULDOV
had he known, he would not have pled guilty.
                                                                    %HFDXVH,DPQRWFRQILGHQWWKDW0LOOHUDQG+D\QHVZRXOG
   Regarding the factual basis for his plea, Miller stated that   KDYH SOHG JXLOW\ LI WKHLU FRXQVHO KDG LQIRUPHG WKDW WKHLU
the version of the facts he gave at the plea hearing was          VHQWHQFHVFRXOGEHDSSHDOHG,FRQFXUZLWKWKHOHDGRSLQLRQ
inaccurate: "I was speaking upon the elements that my lawyer      LQ FRQFOXGLQJ WKDW WKH GHFLVLRQ RI WKH 0LFKLJDQ &RXUW RI
told me to speak on as far as first degree murder." Miller        $SSHDOVZDVDQXQUHDVRQDEOHDSSOLFDWLRQRI6WULFNODQG
stated that when Gravel was killed he was seventy-five yards      86&GSURYLGLQJWKDWDZULWRIKDEHDVFRUSXVLV
from the car and running away. Contrary to the statements he      DYDLODEOH IRU D SHUVRQ LQ VWDWH FXVWRG\ LI WKH VWDWH FRXUW¶V
made at his plea hearing, Miller stated that there had been no    DGMXGLFDWLRQRIWKHSHWLWLRQHU¶VFODLP³UHVXOWHGLQDGHFLVLRQ
plan to take a car and that he did not know what Haynes was       WKDWLQYROYHGDQXQUHDVRQDEOHDSSOLFDWLRQRIFOHDUO\
planning to do when he gave him the gun. He did not intend        HVWDEOLVKHG)HGHUDOODZDVGHWHUPLQHGE\WKH6XSUHPH&RXUW
to take part in a robbery.                                        RI WKH 8QLWHG 6WDWHV´ +LOO Y /RFNKDUW  86  
                                                                  ³>,@QRUGHUWRVDWLVI\WKHµSUHMXGLFH¶UHTXLUHPHQWWKH
                                                                  GHIHQGDQWPXVWVKRZWKDWWKHUHLVDUHDVRQDEOHSUREDELOLW\
    0LOOHUHWDOY6WUDXEHWDO        1RV        1RV               0LOOHUHWDOY6WUDXEHWDO      

³SUHMXGLFH´SURQJZHDUHQRWERXQGE\$('3$¶VGHIHUHQWLDO               In October, 1995, the trial court determined that Miller’s
VWDQGDUGRIUHYLHZEHFDXVHWKH0LFKLJDQ&RXUWRI$SSHDOV              and Haynes’ guilty pleas had not been voluntary, knowing,
QHYHUUHDFKHGWKHLVVXHRISUHMXGLFHZKHQLWGHWHUPLQHGWKDW           and intelligent due to ineffectiveness of trial counsel. The
FRXQVHOV¶ SHUIRUPDQFH ZDV QRW GHILFLHQW  6HH *RQ]DOHV Y      court granted each his motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
0F.XQH  )G   WK &LU                  The Michigan Court of Appeals granted leave to the
H[SODLQLQJWKDWEHFDXVHWKHVWDWHFRXUWFRQVLGHUHGRQO\WZR           prosecutor to appeal those orders.
RI WKUHH UHTXLUHPHQWV QHFHVVDU\ WR HVWDEOLVK D YLRODWLRQ RI
%UDG\Y0DU\ODQG86DGHQRYRVWDQGDUG                 In a consolidated decision addressing Miller’s and Haynes’
RIUHYLHZDSSOLHGWRWKHWKLUGHOHPHQW,WKHUHIRUHEHOLHYH          cases along with another similarly situated appellant,
WKDW WKH GLVVHQW¶V DSSOLFDWLRQ RI $('3$¶V ³REMHFWLYHO\           Dashawn Lyons,the appeals court reversed the trial court.
XQUHDVRQDEOH´WHVWWRWKHSUHMXGLFHFRPSRQHQWRI6WULFNODQG            People v. Haynes (After Remand), 562 N.W.2d 241 (Mich.
LV QRW DSSURSULDWH  :LOOLDPV Y 7D\ORU  86     App. 1997). The court determined that the record showed
 FODULI\LQJ WKH PHDQLQJ RI DQ ³XQUHDVRQDEOH               Miller and Haynes were aware at the time they pled guilty
DSSOLFDWLRQ´RIODZXQGHU86&G                   that they might be sentenced as adults to mandatory terms of
                                                                       life imprisonment without possibility of parole. In addition,
   7KHGLVVHQWFRQFOXGHVWKDW0LOOHU¶VDQG+D\QHV¶VHIIRUWVWR         Miller knew from the prosecutor’s closing argument at his
ZLWKGUDZ WKHLU JXLOW\ SOHDV FRQVWLWXWHG DWWHPSWV WR JHW ³D     final sentencing disposition hearing that the prosecution could
VHFRQGELWHDWWKHDSSOH´DQGWKDWWKHSHWLWLRQHUVHQWHUHGWKHLU      appeal if Miller received a juvenile sentence from the trial
JXLOW\ SOHDV YROXQWDULO\ DQG ZLWK IXOO NQRZOHGJH RI WKH        court. Despite the knowledge each had, Miller and Haynes
SRVVLEOHVHQWHQFHVWKDWWKH\IDFHG,UHVSHFWIXOO\GLVDJUHH          pled guilty and did not move to withdraw their pleas until
$OWKRXJK0LOOHUKHDUGWKHSURVHFXWRULQIRUPWKHWULDOMXGJH            after the conclusion of the appeal regarding their sentences.
WKDW WKH VWDWH ZRXOG DSSHDO LI 0LOOHU ZHUH VHQWHQFHG DV D    Therefore, the court concluded, Miller and Haynes understood
MXYHQLOHWKLVVWDWHPHQWFDPHHOHYHQPRQWKVDIWHUKLVJXLOW\           the consequences of their pleas, and the pleas were
SOHDDQGZDVLPPHGLDWHO\QHXWUDOL]HGE\KLVFRXQVHOWHOOLQJ           knowingly, understandingly, and voluntarily made. Haynes
KLPQRWWRZRUU\DERXWDQ\DSSHDO7KLVDGYLFHRQFHPRUH              (After Remand), 562 N.W.2d at 246, 248. The Michigan
GLVJXLVHGWKHDGGLWLRQDOULVNRIDQDSSHDOWKDW0LOOHUIDFHG          Supreme Court denied Miller and Haynes leave to appeal.
0RUHRYHU WKH UHFRUG VXSSRUWV D ILQGLQJ WKDW 0LOOHU¶V DQG
+D\QHV¶VFRXQVHOQRWWKHSHWLWLRQHUVPDGHWKHGHFLVLRQVWR              Miller and Haynes petitioned the federal district court for
SXUVXHWKHDSSHDOVIRUWKHLUUHVSHFWLYHFOLHQWV7KHUHLVQR          writs of habeas corpus. The court granted the writs, ordering
LQGLFDWLRQ WKDW DQ\RQH LQIRUPHG 0LOOHU RU +D\QHV RI WKH        that Miller and Haynes be released unless they were given
SRVVLELOLW\ RI ZLWKGUDZLQJ WKHLU JXLOW\ SOHDV SULRU WR          trials. The district court concluded that Miller’s and Haynes’
VHQWHQFLQJRUGXULQJWKHVWDWH¶VDSSHDORIWKHLUVHQWHQFHV,GR      trial counsel were ineffective in failing to advise them of the
QRWEHOLHYHWKDW0LOOHUDQG+D\QHVVKRXOGEHSHQDOL]HGIRU
ZKDWDSSHDUVWREHWKHGHFLVLRQVRIWKHLUFRXQVHOWRSXUVXHWKH
VWDWHFRXUWDSSHDOV7KXVWKHGLVVHQW¶VLQIHUHQFHWKDW0LOOHU
DQG +D\QHV ZHUH ³JDPLQJ WKH V\VWHP´ LV LQ P\ RSLQLRQ
XQZDUUDQWHGXQGHUWKHVHFLUFXPVWDQFHV
                                                                           
                                                                            /\RQV DOVR SHWLWLRQHG IRU D ZULW RI KDEHDV FRUSXV LQ IHGHUDO GLVWULFW
  :LWKUHVSHFWWRZKHWKHU0LOOHUDQG+D\QHVHQWHUHGWKHLU              FRXUW ,Q DQ RSLQLRQ ILOHG FRQWHPSRUDQHRXVO\ ZLWK WKLV RSLQLRQ ZH KDYH
JXLOW\ SOHDV NQRZLQJO\ DQG LQWHOOLJHQWO\ , EHOLHYH WKDW WKH   DIILUPHG WKH JUDQW RI KDEHDV FRUSXV UHOLHI WR /\RQV E\ WKH GLVWULFW FRXUW
                                                                       6HH /\RQV Y -DFNVRQ   BBB )G BBB WK &LU 
       0LOOHUHWDOY6WUDXEHWDO      1RV         1RV            0LOOHUHWDOY6WUDXEHWDO     

prosecutor’s right to appeal. As a result, Miller and Haynes            DQG IDFWV UHOHYDQW WR SODXVLEOH RSWLRQV DUH YLUWXDOO\
had not pled guilty voluntarily or knowingly. The wardens                XQFKDOOHQJHDEOHDQGVWUDWHJLFFKRLFHVPDGHDIWHUOHVVWKDQ
appealed to this court.                                                  FRPSOHWHLQYHVWLJDWLRQDUHUHDVRQDEOHSUHFLVHO\WRWKHH[WHQW
                                                                         WKDWUHDVRQDEOHSURIHVVLRQDOMXGJPHQWVVXSSRUWWKHOLPLWDWLRQV
                         ,,',6&866,21                                 RQLQYHVWLJDWLRQ´$VWKHOHDGRSLQLRQQRWHVDUHDVRQDEOH
                                                                         DWWRUQH\ZRXOGKDYHFRQVLGHUHGWKHSRVVLELOLW\RIDQDSSHDO
$ +DEHDV&RUSXV5HYLHZ                                                 EHIRUHDGYLVLQJ0LOOHUDQG+D\QHVWRSOHDGJXLOW\XQGHUWKH
                                                                         FLUFXPVWDQFHVRIWKHSUHVHQWFDVH
  Provisions of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty
Act (AEDPA) codified at 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) govern our                      )LQDOO\ , EHOLHYH WKDW WKH GLVVHQW¶V FRQVLGHUDWLRQ RI WKH
reviewRIWKHVWDWHFRXUWGHFLVLRQVLQWKLVKDEHDVFRUSXVFDVH          VWUHQJWKRIWKHVWDWH¶VFDVHDJDLQVWWKHSHWLWLRQHUVLQDVVHVVLQJ
                                                                         ZKHWKHUFRXQVHOSURYLGHGFRPSHWHQWUHSUHVHQWDWLRQLQFOXGLQJ
     G $Q DSSOLFDWLRQ IRU D ZULW RI KDEHDV FRUSXV RQ          WKHVXJJHVWLRQWKDWWKHLURQO\DYDLODEOHGHIHQVHZDVDKRSHIRU
  EHKDOIRIDSHUVRQLQFXVWRG\SXUVXDQWWRWKHMXGJPHQWRI              MXU\ QXOOLILFDWLRQ IRFXVHV RQ WKH ZURQJ LVVXH  7KH
  D 6WDWH FRXUW VKDOO QRW EH JUDQWHG ZLWK UHVSHFW WR DQ\       SHWLWLRQHUVLQP\RSLQLRQZHUHHQWLWOHGWREHDGYLVHGRIWKH
  FODLPWKDWZDVDGMXGLFDWHGRQWKHPHULWVLQ6WDWHFRXUW                SRVVLELOLW\ RI DQ DSSHDO EHIRUH GHFLGLQJ ZKHWKHU WR SOHDG
  SURFHHGLQJVXQOHVVWKHDGMXGLFDWLRQRIWKHFODLP²                    JXLOW\EHFDXVHZLWKRXWWKDWNQRZOHGJHWKHLUGHFLVLRQVZHUH
      UHVXOWHG LQ D GHFLVLRQ that was contrary to, or            QRW EDVHG XSRQ DOO RI WKH UHOHYDQW IDFWV  $OWKRXJK WKH
  involved an unreasonable application of, clearly                       6XSUHPH&RXUWKDVKHOGWKDWWKH6L[WK$PHQGPHQWGRHVQRW
  established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme                  UHTXLUH D FRUUHFW DVVHVVPHQW RI WKH ULVNV DQG EHQHILWV RI
  Court of the United States[.]                                          SOHDGLQJJXLOW\DVRSSRVHGWRSURFHHGLQJWRWULDOLWUHFRJQL]HV
                                                                         WKDWFRXQVHOPXVWDWOHDVWEHDZDUHRIVXFKULVNVHVSHFLDOO\
28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1).                                                  ZKHUHWKHODFNRIDZDUHQHVVGLUHFWO\LPSDFWVWKHUHDVRQLQJ
                                                                         EHKLQG ZKDWHYHU DGYLFH LV SURYLGHG  6HH 0F0DQQ Y
  The federal district court considered Miller’s and Haynes’             5LFKDUGVRQ86³4XHVWLRQVOLNHWKHVH
petitions for habeas corpus under the "unreasonable                      >UHODWLQJ WR WKH ULVNV RI WULDO@ FDQQRW EH DQVZHUHG ZLWK
application" prong of this statute. None of the parties argue            FHUWLWXGH\HWDGHFLVLRQWRSOHDGJXLOW\PXVWQHFHVVDULO\UHVW
that the federal district court should have inquired whether             XSRQFRXQVHO¶VDQVZHUVXQFHUWDLQDVWKH\PD\EH´8QLWHG
the Michigan Court of Appeals decision was "contrary to"                 6WDWHV Y +DQOH\  )G   WK &LU 
clearly established federal law. We proceed, therefore, under            UHFRJQL]LQJWKDW³DUHYHUVDOIRULQHIIHFWLYHDVVLVWDQFHZRXOG
the "unreasonable application" prong of 28 U.S.C.                        EHLQRUGHU´LIWKHGHIHQGDQWKDGSOHGJXLOW\VROHO\LQUHOLDQFH
§ 2254(d)(1).                                                            XSRQ KLV FRXQVHO¶V HUURQHRXV DGYLFH ³WKDW KH ZRXOG EH
                                                                         HOLJLEOH IRU SDUROH LQ RQHWKLUG WKH WLPH KH UHFHLYHG IRU
                                                                         VHQWHQFH´
                                                                            , DOVR DJUHH ZLWK WKH OHDG RSLQLRQ WKDW LI FRXQVHO KDG
                                                                        LQIRUPHG0LOOHUDQG+D\QHVWKDWWKHVWDWHFRXOGDSSHDOWKH
      ,Q IHGHUDO GLVWULFW FRXUW +D\QHV DOOHJHG RWKHU JURXQGV IRU
LQHIIHFWLYHQHVV RI FRXQVHO 7KDW FRXUW KDYLQJ JUDQWHG UHOLHI EDVHG RQ
                                                                         WULDO MXGJH¶V VHQWHQFLQJ GHFLVLRQV D UHDVRQDEOH SUREDELOLW\
+D\QHV¶ FRXQVHO¶V IDLOXUH WR DGYLVH KLP RI WKH SURVHFXWRU¶V ULJKW WR     H[LVWV WKDW ERWK SHWLWLRQHUV ZRXOG KDYH SURFHHGHG WR WULDO
DSSHDO GLG QRW DGGUHVV WKRVH FODLPV +D\QHV Y %XUNH  )6XSSG     UDWKHU WKDQ SOHDG JXLOW\  ,Q FRQVLGHULQJ 6WULFNODQG¶V
  (' 0LFK 
    0LOOHUHWDOY6WUDXEHWDO       1RV        1RV               0LOOHUHWDOY6WUDXEHWDO        

                  BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB                                 In Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000), the Supreme
                                                                      Court elucidated the terms of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). First,
                     &21&855(1&(                                      the Court explained that "clearly established Federal law, as
                  BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB                               determined by the Supreme Court" refers to the Court’s
                                                                      holdings, as opposed to dicta, at the time of the relevant state
  521$/'/((*,/0$1&LUFXLW-XGJHFRQFXUULQJ,IXOO\               court decision. Id. at 412. Second, the Court explained that
FRQFXUZLWKWKHOHDGRSLQLRQ¶VFRQFOXVLRQWKDW0LOOHU¶VDQG           a state court decision unreasonably applies Supreme Court
+D\QHV¶VFRXQVHOZHUHFRQVWLWXWLRQDOO\LQHIIHFWLYHEHFDXVHRI         precedent by either: (1) identifying the correct governing
WKHLUODZ\HUV¶IDLOXUHWRLQIRUPWKHSHWLWLRQHUVWKDWWKHVWDWH       legal rule from Supreme Court precedent but unreasonably
FRXOGDSSHDOWKHGHFLVLRQRIWKHWULDOMXGJHWRVHQWHQFHWKHP         applying it to the facts; or (2) unreasonably extending a legal
DVMXYHQLOHV0\UHDVRQIRUZULWLQJVHSDUDWHO\LVWRH[SODLQ        principle from Supreme Court precedent to a new context
LQZKDW,UHJDUGDVDQH[WUHPHO\FORVHFDVHZK\,ILQGWKH           where it should not apply or unreasonably refusing to extend
ZHOOZULWWHQGLVVHQWLQJRSLQLRQOHVVSHUVXDVLYHWKDQWKHOHDG         that principle to a new context where it should apply. Id. at
RSLQLRQ                                                             407. Finally, the Court declared that the application of law
                                                                      must be objectively unreasonable, id. at 409, and not merely
   /LNHWKHOHDGRSLQLRQ,EHOLHYHWKDWWKH0LFKLJDQ&RXUWRI        incorrect or erroneous. Id. at 411.
$SSHDOV¶VGHWHUPLQDWLRQWKDW0LOOHU¶VDQG+D\QHV¶VFRXQVHO
SHUIRUPHGFRPSHWHQWO\ZDVDQXQUHDVRQDEOHDSSOLFDWLRQRI
6WULFNODQGY:DVKLQJWRQ867KHGLVVHQW
LQFRQWUDVWILQGVFRXQVHOV¶SHUIRUPDQFHWREHFRQVWLWXWLRQDOO\
FRPSHWHQW D FRQFOXVLRQ ZLWK ZKLFK , GLVDJUHH IRU VHYHUDO
UHDVRQV                                                                 
                                                                              7KH 6XSUHPH &RXUW LQ              DFNQRZOHGJHG WKH GLIILFXOW\ LQ
                                                                      GHILQLQJ WKH WHUP ³XQUHDVRQDEOH´ EXW H[SODLQHG WKDW ³LW LV D FRPPRQ WHUP
                                                                                                      :LOOLDPV


   )LUVW LQ UHDFKLQJ WKH FRQFOXVLRQ WKDW WKH SHWLWLRQHUV¶     LQ WKH OHJDO ZRUOG DQG DFFRUGLQJO\ IHGHUDO MXGJHV DUH IDPLOLDU ZLWK LWV
FRXQVHOSURYLGHGFRPSHWHQWUHSUHVHQWDWLRQWKHGLVVHQWGRHV           PHDQLQJ´  86 DW  7KLV FLUFXLW KDV VWDWHG WKDW ZH ³UHO\ VROHO\ RQ
QRWDGGUHVVWKHIDLOXUHRIFRXQVHOWRLQIRUP0LOOHUDQG+D\QHV        WKH 6XSUHPH &RXUW¶V GHFLVLRQ LQ    :LOOLDPV   IRU WKH DSSURSULDWH VWDQGDUG
WKDW WKH VWDWH FRXOG DSSHDO WKH WULDO MXGJH¶V VHQWHQFLQJ      XQGHU  G´ Harris v. Stovall, 212 F.3d 940, 943 (6th Cir. 2000);
GHFLVLRQV  7KH GLVVHQW LQVWHDG IRFXVHV VROHO\ RQ ZKHWKHU
                                                                      accord                     )G   	 Q WK &LU  2WKHU
                                                                      FLUFXLW FRXUWV WKDW KDYH DWWHPSWHG JUHDWHU FODULILFDWLRQ KDYH FRPH WR
                                                                               0LOOHU Y )UDQFLV


FRXQVHOV¶VWUDWHJ\ZDVUHDVRQDEOHLQOLJKWRIWKHLUNQRZOHGJH         ZLGHO\ GLYHUJHQW YLHZV RQ WKH PHDQLQJ RI ³XQUHDVRQDEOH´ &RPSDUH
RIWKHWULDOMXGJH¶VVHQWHQFLQJWHQGHQFLHVWKHUHE\RYHUORRNLQJ                             )G   G &LU  VWDWLQJ WKDW DQ
                                                                      ³XQUHDVRQDEOH DSSOLFDWLRQ´ UHTXLUHV ³>V@RPH LQFUHPHQW RI LQFRUUHFWQHVV
                                                                      )UDQFLV 6 Y 6WRQH

WKH YHU\ RPLVVLRQ WKDW LQ P\ RSLQLRQ UHQGHUHG WKH
SHUIRUPDQFHRIWKHSHWLWLRQHUV¶FRXQVHOGHILFLHQW                  EH\RQG HUURU´ EXW ³WKH LQFUHPHQW QHHG QRW EH JUHDW RWKHUZLVH KDEHDV
                                                                      UHOLHI ZRXOG EH OLPLWHG WR VWDWH FRXUW GHFLVLRQV µVR IDU RII WKH PDUN DV WR
  6HFRQG EHFDXVH 0LOOHU¶V DQG +D\QHV¶V FRXQVHO QHYHU
                                                                      VXJJHVW MXGLFLDO LQFRPSHWHQFH¶´ TXRWLQJ
                                                                               )G   G &LU  ZLWK
                                                                                                                  0DWWHR Y 6XSHULQWHQGHQW 6&,
                                                                      $OELRQ                                              .LEEH Y 'XERLV   
FRQVLGHUHG WKH SRVVLELOLW\ RI WKH VWDWH DSSHDOLQJ WKH WULDO   )G   VW &LU  ³>$@ VWDWH FRXUW GHFLVLRQ LV REMHFWLYHO\
MXGJH¶VVHQWHQFLQJGHFLVLRQVWKHLUDGYLVLQJWKHSHWLWLRQHUVWR       XQUHDVRQDEOH XQGHU $('3$ RQO\ LI LW LV VR RIIHQVLYH WR H[LVWLQJ
SOHDG JXLOW\ WR ILUVWGHJUHH PXUGHU FDQQRW EH FRQVLGHUHG D    SUHFHGHQW VR GHYRLG RI UHFRUG VXSSRUW RU VR DUELWUDU\ DV WR LQGLFDWH WKDW

UHDVRQDEOHVWUDWHJLFGHFLVLRQWRZKLFKGHIHUHQFHVKRXOGEH            LW LV RXWVLGH WKH XQLYHUVH RI SODXVLEOH FUHGLEOH RXWFRPHV´ LQWHUQDO
                                                                      TXRWDWLRQ PDUNV UHPRYHG DQG ZLWK 'HOJDGR Y /HZLV  )G  
DFFRUGHG  6WULFNODQG  86 DW  H[SODLQLQJ WKDW    WK &LU  HTXDWLQJ DQ ³XQUHDVRQDEOH DSSOLFDWLRQ´ ZLWK ³FOHDU
³VWUDWHJLFFKRLFHVPDGHDIWHUWKRURXJKLQYHVWLJDWLRQRIODZ           HUURU´ LH ³D GHILQLWH DQG ILUP FRQYLFWLRQ WKDW DQ HUURU KDV EHHQ
                                                                      FRPPLWWHG´
    0LOOHUHWDOY6WUDXEHWDO           1RV          1RV          0LOOHUHWDOY6WUDXEHWDO   

B. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel                                                            III. CONCLUSION
   In Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) and Strickland v.                  We conclude that Miller and Haynes each received
Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), the Supreme Court set out                  constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel. We further
the law applicable to an ineffective assistance of counsel                  conclude that decisions to the contrary on the facts of each
claim such as that made by Miller and Haynes. Both Hill and                 case are unreasonable applications of clearly established
Strickland were clearly established federal law as determined               federal law. We WKHUHIRUH $)),50 WKH IHGHUDO GLVWULFW
by the Supreme Court at the time of the final Michigan Court                FRXUW¶V FRQGLWLRQDO JUDQW RI KDEHDV FRUSXV VHSDUDWHO\ IRU
of Appeals decision in 1997. 6HH:LOOLDPV86DW                 0LOOHUDQG+D\QHV
UHIHUULQJWR6WULFNODQGDV³FOHDUO\HVWDEOLVKHGSUHFHGHQW´
DWWKHWLPHRID9LUJLQLDVWDWHFRXUW¶VGHFLVLRQ
  Under Strickland, a defendant claiming ineffective
assistance of counsel must show both deficient performance
by counsel and prejudice to the defendant resulting from that
deficient performance. 466 U.S. at 687. To be deficient,
counsel’s performance must fall below an objective standard
of reasonableness. Id. at 687-88; Hill, 474 U.S. at 58-59. In
Hill, which applied Strickland to the guilty plea context, the
Court explained that a defendant shows prejudice by
demonstrating "a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's
errors, [the defendant] would not have pleaded guilty and
would have insisted on going to trial." Id. at 59.
   Although the Michigan Court of Appeals did not mention
either Hill or Strickland by name, it did apply the law of those
cases. Thus, we must examine whether that court applied
Hill and Strickland unreasonably.

     
       7KH FRXUW RI DSSHDOV UHFRJQL]HG WKDW D GHWHUPLQDWLRQ RI ZKHWKHU
0LOOHU¶V DQG +D\QHV¶ JXLOW\ SOHDV ZHUH PDGH NQRZLQJO\ DQG YROXQWDULO\
WXUQHG RQ ZKHWKHU WKHLU DWWRUQH\V¶ DGYLFH ZDV ³ZLWKLQ WKH UDQJH RI
FRPSHWHQFH GHPDQGHG RI DWWRUQH\V LQ FULPLQDO FDVHV´ +D\QHV $IWHU
5HPDQG  1:G DW   7KLV LV WKH HTXLYDOHQW RI WKH
SHUIRUPDQFH LQTXLU\ LQ 6WULFNODQG 6HH +LOO  86 DW   HTXDWLQJ
6WULFNODQG¶V SHUIRUPDQFH LQTXLU\ ZLWK FRQVLGHUDWLRQ RI ZKHWKHU FRXQVHO¶V
DGYLFH ZDV ³ZLWKLQ WKH UDQJH RI FRPSHWHQFH GHPDQGHG RI DWWRUQH\V LQ
FULPLQDO FDVHV´ Because WKH 0LFKLJDQ &RXUW RI $SSHDOV GHWHUPLQHG
0LOOHU¶V DQG +D\QHV¶ WULDO FRXQVHO SHUIRUPHG DGHTXDWHO\ LW GLG QRW UHDFK
WKH TXHVWLRQV ZKHWKHU 0LOOHU DQG +D\QHV HDFK ZHUH SUHMXGLFHG E\
GHILFLHQW SHUIRUPDQFH
    0LOOHUHWDOY6WUDXEHWDO      1RV       1RV           0LOOHUHWDOY6WUDXEHWDO   

   Miller puts forth additional evidence that, with competent         We emphasize that Hill and Strickland state the relevant
assistance, he would have pled not guilty. Lusby testified that     law in this case. Relying on a string of circuit court cases, the
Miller pled guilty only reluctantly. The fact that Lusby had        wardens argue that defense counsels’ failure to inform Miller
to prevail upon Miller to plead guilty tends to corroborate         and Haynes of the prosecution's right to appeal the imposition
Miller’s testimony that he would have pled not guilty had he        of a juvenile sentence does not comprise ineffective
known of the prosecutor’s right to appeal. Lusby convinced          assistance because the prosecutor’s right of appeal represents
Miller to plead, but did so without advising him of the full        a collateral, as opposed to a direct, consequence of the plea.
risk he faced of receiving a life sentence. This evidence           We reject this argument on two grounds.
shows that Miller would have been less likely to plead guilty
had he been competently advised of all the risks.                       First, the wardens’ reliance on circuit court cases is
                                                                    improper. The AEDPA prohibits use of lower court decisions
   Warden Straub argues that Miller actually knew before he         in determining whether the state court decision is contrary to,
was sentenced that the prosecutor could appeal. The                 or is an unreasonable application of, clearly established
prosecutor did state in his closing argument at Miller’s final      federal law. Williams, 529 U.S. at 412 (defining "clearly
sentencing hearing that he would appeal if Miller was               established law as determined by the Supreme Court" to mean
sentenced as a juvenile. However, tKHGLHKDGDOUHDG\EHHQ          holdings of Supreme Court decisions); Harris, 212 F.3d at
FDVW0LOOHU¶VILQDOVHQWHQFLQJKHDULQJFDPHHOHYHQPRQWKV         944 (holding district court erred in "rely[ing] on authority
DIWHU KLV SOHD KDG EHHQ DFFHSWHG DQG /XVE\ GLVPLVVHG WKH   other than that of the Supreme Court of the United States in
FRQFHUQV 0LOOHU H[SUHVVHG WR KLP DERXW WKH SURVHFXWRU
V      its analysis under § 2254(d)").
VWDWHPHQWEHFDXVH/XVE\FRQVLGHUHGWKHSURVHFXWRUXQOLNHO\
WRVXFFHHG0LOOHU¶VIDLOXUHVXGGHQO\WRUHMHFWKLVFRXQVHO¶V         Second, the wardens’ argument is incompatible with
DGYLFHXSRQZKLFKKHUHOLHGKHDYLO\DQGSUHVVWRZLWKGUDZ        Supreme Court case law. The Court does not use a
KLVJXLOW\SOHDD\HDUDIWHUKHPDGHLWGRHVQRWVKRZ0LOOHU        direct/collateral consequence categorization scheme to decide
ZDVXQSUHMXGLFHGE\/XVE\¶VLQFRPSHWHQFH                          ineffective assistance of counsel claims. Indeed, in Hill, the
                                                                    Supreme Court reviewed an Eighth Circuit decision holding
  We conclude that Miller’s and Lusby’s testimony, along            that parole eligibility was not a "direct consequence" of a
with reasonable inferences from the facts and circumstances         guilty plea. See Hill v. Lockhart, 731 F.2d 568, 570-73 (8th
of this case, are sufficient to demonstrate not only a              Cir. 1984). The Court noted this holding, but eschewed any
reasonable probability that Miller would have decided to            such characterization in favor of directly applying Strickland
plead not guilty but also that a contrary conclusion is             to the plea context. Hill, 474 U.S. at 55, 57-60. As the Court
objectively unreasonable.                                           stated in Williams: "the Strickland test provides sufficient
                                                                    guidance for resolving virtually all ineffective-assistance-of-
  The untimely death of Haynes’ trial counsel prevents him          counsel claims." 529 U.S. at 391.
from offering any corroborative testimony that Haynes would
have pled not guilty. In these special circumstances, we            C. Analysis
conclude that Haynes’ claim and the absence of any evidence
or tenable argument to the contrary is sufficient to establish        The federal district court concluded that the Michigan
not only a reasonable likelihood that he would have pled not        Court of Appeals decision was an unreasonable application of
guilty, but also that any contrary conclusion is objectively        Hill and Strickland. We review de novo a district court’s
unreasonable.                                                       legal conclusions in a habeas corpus proceeding. Miller v.
     0LOOHUHWDOY6WUDXEHWDO     1RV       1RV               0LOOHUHWDOY6WUDXEHWDO      

Francis, 269 F.3d 609, 613 (6th Cir. 2001). Where, as here,         [Miller and Haynes] might not have been told that the
the district court’s factual findings are based on a transcript     prosecution could appeal [the juvenile] sentence [they were]
from the state court proceedings and the district court makes       never assured of receiving in the first place should be of no
no credibility determination, we also review those findings de      consequence."
novo. Id. We must determine whether it is an unreasonable
application of Hill and Strickland to hold either: (1) that the       The wardens maintain that if a defendant is aware of the
petitioners’ trial counsel provided them with objectively           maximum possible sentence he cannot be prejudiced by his
reasonable assistance; or (2) that even if the petitioners had      counsel's failure to inform him of the prosecutor's right to
been reasonably advised, they stillZRXOGKDYHSOHGJXLOW\         appeal. We decline to adopt the wardens’ argument. An
                                                                    awareness of the sentencing range available to the trial judge
      3HUIRUPDQFHRI&RXQVHO                                      is not the same as an informed understanding that a
                                                                    sentencing judge's decision is subject to reversal. The rule
  The proper measure of attorney performance is whether             suggested by the warden would preclude courts from finding
counsel’s assistance was reasonable "under prevailing               prejudice in any situation where the defendant knew the range
professional norms" and "considering all the circumstances."        of penalties to which he was subject.
Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688. We make a case-by-case
examination of the evidence, Williams, 529 U.S. at 391, and           Furthermore, the circumstances of these cases illustrate the
"indulge a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls          failings of the wardens’ argument. Miller and Haynes pled
within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance."       guilty in hopes of avoiding life imprisonment without parole.
Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689.                                        A reduced likelihood of being sentenced as an adult was the
                                                                    sole benefit of their guilty pleas before Chief Judge Roberson.
  The professional norms that guide us rest upon defense            In reality, the risk of being sentenced as an adult came in two
counsel’s fundamental duties "to bring to bear such skill and       parts: (1) being sentenced as an adult by Chief Judge
knowledge as will render the trial a reliable adversarial testing   Roberson; and (2) having received a juvenile sentence from
process" and "to consult with the defendant on important            Chief Judge Roberson, being subject to a successful appeal by
decisions and to keep the defendant informed of important           the prosecutor. Miller and Haynes, however, each received
developments in the course of the prosecution." Id. at 688.         from his attorney information of only the first risk. Defense
                                                                    counsel's failure to assess all the risks and inform Miller and
  The federal district court articulated the circumstances          Haynes left each of them to make the most important decision
relevant to the performance inquiry in this case:                   of his life without essential information. Presented with all
                                                                    the risks, Haynes and Miller might well have decided to plead
  [T]rial counsel’s performance was deficient within the            not guilty and to take their chances at trial. To meet the
  meaning of the Strickland standard where he failed to             prejudice requirement under Hill and Strickland, Haynes and
  advise petitioner that the prosecutor could appeal a              Miller need only show a reasonable probability that they
  juvenile sentence to a Michigan appellate court with the          would have pled not guilty had their attorneys competently
  very real possibility that a higher court would order             advised them.
  petitioner resentenced as an adult.           Because of
  petitioner’s young age, petitioner was particularly reliant
  on his attorney’s advice to plead guilty to the offenses in
  this case. In light of what amounted to extraordinary             WHVWLILHG WKDW KLV DSSHOODWH FRXQVHO DGYLVHG KLP WKHUH ZHUH RWKHU VWHSV WR
                                                                    EH WDNHQ EHIRUH WKH\ VKRXOG FRQVLGHU ZLWKGUDZLQJ WKH SOHD
     0LOOHUHWDOY6WUDXEHWDO           1RV           1RV                0LOOHUHWDOY6WUDXEHWDO       

  2.      Prejudice                                                             advice by counsel that petitioner plead guilty to an
                                                                                offense which carried a mandatory sentence of life
   To determine whether the petitioners were prejudiced by                      imprisonment without parole, counsel had a duty both to
their attorneys’ deficient performance, we ask whether there                    consider and to advise petitioner of the prosecutor’s right
is a reasonable probability that, had they been advised of the                  to appeal any sentence to the Michigan appellate courts,
prosecutor’s right of appeal, they would have pled not guilty.                  with the possibility that petitioner’s juvenile sentence
A "reasonable probability" is a probability sufficient to                       would be overturned on appeal and he would then have
undermine confidence in the outcome; it is less than a                          to serve a nonparolable life sentence.
preponderance of the evidence. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694.
                                                                              Haynes v. Burke, 115 F.Supp.2d 813, 819 (E.D. Mich.
   Both Miller and Haynes testified similarly at the                          2000).
evidentiary hearings on their plea withdrawal motions that
each was initially hesitant to plead guilty, and that each would                 0LOOHU¶VWULDOFRXQVHO/XVE\EURXJKWWREHDURQWKLVFDVH
have pled not guilty had each known the prosecutor could                      KLVNQRZOHGJHRIWKHMXYHQLOHVHQWHQFLQJSURFHVVDQG&KLHI
appeal. This testimony, though self-serving, may be enough                    -XGJH5REHUVRQ
VVHQWHQFLQJSUDFWLFHV7KHUHLVQRGRXEWWKDW
by itself to satisfy the prejudice prong under the                            LQWKLVUHJDUG0LOOHULQLWLDOO\EHQHILWWHGIURP/XVE\
VDGYLFH
circumstances here. See Magana v. Hofbauer, 263 F.3d 542,                     )XUWKHUPRUH/XVE\DGHTXDWHO\LQIRUPHG0LOOHUUHJDUGLQJWKH
547 n.1 (6th Cir. 2001) (noting that, unlike the Seventh and                  ULVN UHODWHG WR &KLHI -XGJH 5REHUVRQ¶V VHQWHQFLQJ
Second Circuits, this Circuit has not explicitly adopted a                    GHWHUPLQDWLRQ0LOOHUunderstood that if he pled guilty &KLHI
requirement that in order to establish prejudice a defendant                  -XGJH 5REHUVRQ FRXOG RSW WR LPSRVH HLWKHU D VHYHUH DGXOW
must come forward with objective evidence in addition to his                  VHQWHQFHRIOLIHLPSULVRQPHQWRUDOHQLHQWMXYHQLOHVHQWHQFH
post-conviction claim that he would have changed his mind
about pleading guilty). The circumstances of these cases do                      +RZHYHU/XVE\DFWHGLQFRPSHWHQWO\LQIDLOLQJWRFRQVLGHU
not require that we resolve this issue today.                                 WKHOLNHOLKRRGWKDWWKHSURVHFXWRUZRXOGH[HUFLVHKLVULJKWWR
                                                                              DSSHDOWKHGLVWULFWFRXUW
VLPSRVLWLRQRIDMXYHQLOHVHQWHQFH
  The wardens argue that Miller and Haynes could not have                     $Q\MXYHQLOHVHQWHQFHLPSRVHGRQ0LOOHUZRXOGEHOHVVWKDQ
been prejudiced by any deficiency on the part of their trial                  VL[\HDUVLQDMXYHQLOHIDFLOLW\*LYHQVXFKDOHQLHQWVHQWHQFH
counsel because they acknowledged at their March 1990 plea                    IRUILUVWGHJUHHPXUGHULWZDVXQUHDVRQDEOHIRU/XVE\QRWWR
hearings that they could be sentenced to life imprisonment                    KDYH FRQVLGHUHG WKDW WKH SURVHFXWRU FRXOG DSSHDO DQG WKH
without parole.$FFRUGLQJWRWKHZDUGHQV"the fact that                   MXYHQLOHVHQWHQFHFRXOGEHUHYHUVHG<HW/XVE\did not factor
                                                                              this scenario into his advice to Miller that pleading guilty was
                                                                              in Miller’s best interest.Thus, Miller did not know that the
     
       :DUGHQ %XUNH DOVR DUJXHV WKDW +D\QHV FDQQRW VKRZ SUHMXGLFH
EHFDXVH DIWHU OHDUQLQJ WKDW WKH SURVHFXWLRQ KDG DSSHDOHG KLV MXYHQLOH            
                                                                                     7KH IHGHUDO GLVWULFW FRXUW¶V RSLQLRQ LQ 0LOOHU¶V FDVH contains almost
VHQWHQFH +D\QHV IDLOHG WR UHTXHVW WKDW WKH FDVH EH UHPDQGHG WR WKH WULDO
FRXUW VR WKDW KH FRXOG ZLWKGUDZ KLV SOHD $ GHIHQGDQW¶V GHFLVLRQ QRW WR
                                                                              precisely the same wording.   0LOOHU Y 6WUDXE   1R &9'7 6OLS
                                                                              2S DW  (' 0LFK $XJ  
DEDQGRQ WKH DSSHOODWH SURFHVV LQ DQ HIIRUW WR ZLWKGUDZ KLV JXLOW\ SOHD GRHV
QRW REYLDWH SUHMXGLFH WR WKH GHIHQGDQW LQ SOHDGLQJ JXLOW\ DV WKH GHFLVLRQ
                                                                                  
WR SOHDG KDG DOUHDG\ EHHQ PDGH 0RUHRYHU WKH ZDUGHQ¶V FRQWHQWLRQ LV                 ,Q DGGLWLRQ /XVE\ HQWLUHO\ IDLOHG WR FRQVLGHU WKDW DQ DSSHDOV FRXUW
ZHDNHQHG EHFDXVH WKH FDVH UHPDLQHG LQ WKH DSSHDOV FRXUW QRW WKH WULDO        IDFHG ZLWK WKH VDPH WZR UDGLFDOO\ GLIIHUHQW VHQWHQFLQJ SRVVLELOLWLHV DV
FRXUW ZKHUH ZLWKGUDZDO SOHDV PXVW EH PDGH $GGLWLRQDOO\ +D\QHV               &KLHI -XGJH 5REHUVRQ PLJKW ZHOO UHYHUVH WKH WULDO FRXUW LQ IDYRU RI WKH
     0LOOHUHWDOY6WUDXEHWDO              1RV            1RV               0LOOHUHWDOY6WUDXEHWDO   

prosecutor could appeal and that the juvenile sentence could                         Miller’s age and his heavy reliance on Lusby, a reliance
be reversed, and, if so, Miller would serve a life sentence                       Lusby acknowledged was "practically total[]," enhanced
without possibility of parole.                                                    Lusby’s duty to make certain that Miller understood all the
                                                                                  risks associated with his guilty plea. Miller was fifteen years
   Lusby should have considered these possibilities, informed                     old and a year behind in school. His parents, according to
Miller about them, and incorporated them into his risk                            Lusby, were themselves reliant on Lusby for advice. This
assessment when he advised Miller about pleading guilty. He                       case epitomizes the criminal defendant's need for what the
failed to do so. Rather, he advised Miller to plead guilty                        Supreme Court has called the "guiding hand of counsel at
based solely upon his assessment of the relative risks in going                   every step in the proceeding against him." Powell v.
to trial versus pleading guilty before Chief Judge Roberson.                      Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 69 (1932).
As a result, Lusby misinformed Miller regarding the
likelihood he would receive an adult sentence. Miller was not                        We conclude that Miller’s trial counsel was incompetent.
fully apprised of the risks he faced.                                             It is an objectively unreasonable application of Hill and
                                                                                  Strickland for the Michigan Court of Appeals to hold
   The duty of defense counsel to consult is paramount when                       otherwise.
a client has to decide whether or not to waive a constitutional
right, such as the right to trial. Because the decision whether                      Haynes testified that his trial counsel, Rice, similarly failed
or not to plead guilty ultimately rests with the client, see                      to inform him of the prosecutor’s right to appeal the trial
Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745, 751 (1983) ("the accused has                       court’s imposition of a juvenile sentence. Due to Rice’s
the ultimate authority to make certain fundamental decisions                      death, Haynes was unable to offer any testimony which might
regarding the case, as to whether to plead guilty, waive a jury,                  corroborate this assertion. TKH0LFKLJDQ&RXUWRI$SSHDOV
testify in his or her own behalf, or take an appeal");                            DVVXPHGWKDW+D\QHV¶GHIHQVHFRXQVHOGLGQRWLQIRUPKLPWKDW
Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72, 93 n.1 (1977) (Burger,                          WKH SURVHFXWRU FRXOG DSSHDO WKH WULDO FRXUW¶V VHQWHQFLQJ
C.J., concurring) ("[o]nly such basic decisions as whether to                     GHFLVLRQ+D\QHV$IWHU5HPDQG1:GDWQ
plead guilty, waive a jury, or testify in one's own behalf are                    7KHIHGHUDOGLVWULFWFRXUWDFFHSWHGWKDWDVVXPSWLRQHaynes
ultimately for the accused to make"), counsel must ensure that                    v. Burke, 115 F.Supp.2d at 818. ,QKHUDSSHDOWRWKLVFRXUW
the client's decision is as informed as possible. Failing even                    :DUGHQ%XUNHGRHVQRWFKDOOHQJHWKHIDFWWKDW5LFHGLGQRW
to consider, let alone notify the client of, a factor that could                  LQIRUP +D\QHV RI WKH SURVHFXWRU¶V ULJKW WR DSSHDO  7KHUH
negate the entire benefit of the guilty plea is not within the                    EHLQJQRWKLQJLQWKHUHFRUGWRFRQWUDGLFWWKH0LFKLJDQFRXUW¶V
range of professional norms.                                                    DVVXPSWLRQZHDGRSWLW
                                                                                    With this assumption made, the reasoning from Miller’s
                                                                                  case applies. Like Miller, Haynes should have been fully
PRUH VHYHUH VHQWHQFH
                                                                                  apprised of the risks he faced, but was not. We conclude that
                                                                                Haynes’ trial counsel was incompetent and that it is an
        &LWLQJ WKH 6XSUHPH &RXUW¶V UHFHQW GHFLVLRQ LQ %HOO Y &RQH 
6&W   WKH GLVVHQW VWDWHV WKDW DQ DWWRUQH\¶V OHJLWLPDWH WULDO
                                                                                  objectively unreasonable application of Hill and Strickland
WDFWLFV GR QRW FRQVWLWXWH GHILFLHQW SHUIRUPDQFH $ GHIHQVH FRXQVHO¶V              for the Michigan Court of Appeals to hold otherwise.
IDLOXUH WR FRQVLGHU D SURVHFXWRU¶V ULJKW WR DSSHDO LV QRW D WDFWLF RU VWUDWHJ\
$ GHIHQVH FRXQVHO¶V IDLOXUH WR LQIRUP RU DGYLVH WKH GHIHQGDQW UHJDUGLQJ
WKH VWDWH¶V ULJKW RI DSSHDO DQG WKH DWWHQGDQW FKDQFHV RI UHYHUVDO LV QRW D
WDFWLF RU VWUDWHJ\ 6XFK RPLVVLRQV RI OHJDO SUDFWLFH DQG OHJDO FRXQVHOLQJ         FDQ QHYHU EH D OHJLWLPDWH GHIHQVH WDFWLF RU VWUDWHJ\
