Where in this article did it say the attorney instructed the defendant to plead guilty?
I have handled criminal cases for lots of years. There are many reasons defendants want to plead guilty even against their attorney's advice. In this case I'd suspect the guy knew he did it and figured he would get 3 years. Plus he is saved the public embarrassment at trial of his perversion.
I don't know any more about this case than what's printed in this article, even though you seem to have more info than the rest of us. I'd bet money that the lawyer explained to his client the consequence of his pleading guilty. I'm sure the lawyer also explained that his right to an appeal would be waivered.
The lawyer advises the client, explains the process, but in the end has to do what the client wants as long as it is ethical and within the law. I've worked on many cases that the client was their own worst enemy, even against the advise of their lawyer.
Obviously the guy was guilty; he pled guilty. He was not trying to appeal his conviction, just his sentence. The guy gambled he would plead guilty and get a light sentence. It backfired on him. And you have no way of knowing how his attorney advised him, do you?
Sheesh, I wouldn't think it needed an explanation.
Of course it did.
Where in this article did it say the attorney instructed the defendant to plead guilty?
Justice John Paul Stevens said that poor defendants are placed in a difficult position if their court-appointed attorneys fail to properly handle their cases. Halbert's attorney did not object to the calculation of his prison term at the sentencing hearing.
"If that counsel happens to be incompetent, that's the end of the ball game," Stevens said.
I believe it insinuates the defendant was inadequately defended. You're an attorney what does this mean to you?