People v. Brown, 102 N.E.3d 205

Anthony Brown pleaded guilty in 2013 to being an armed habitual criminal (Class X) in a fully negotiated plea, receiving an 18-year sentence; the State nol-prossed a home-invasion charge that carried a much higher exposure.
Brown later alleged trial counsel told him he would serve only 50% of the sentence, whereas the applicable statute required serving 85% for armed habitual criminal convictions.
Brown filed a postconviction petition claiming ineffective assistance of counsel based on erroneous sentencing advice and sought an evidentiary hearing.
The trial court dismissed the petition for failure to show prejudice; the appellate court affirmed, rejecting earlier appellate decisions that held such an allegation alone suffices to show prejudice.
The Illinois Supreme Court granted leave, considered U.S. Supreme Court precedent (including Lee), and affirmed dismissal, holding Brown’s petition did not make the required substantial showing of prejudice under Strickland/Hill given the circumstances of his plea.

Issue	Brown's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether erroneous sentencing advice by plea counsel alone establishes prejudice under Strickland/Hill to warrant an evidentiary hearing	Brown: counsel told him he would serve 50% so he accepted plea; this erroneous advice prejudiced him and entitles him to an evidentiary hearing	State: a bare allegation that petitioner would not have pled is insufficient; must consider surrounding circumstances and whether rejecting plea would have been rational	Court: Lee and Illinois precedent require assessing surrounding circumstances; a bare allegation is insufficient—Brown failed to show rejecting the plea would have been rational, so no prejudice established

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (established two-prong ineffective-assistance test) (deficient performance and prejudice)
Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (applies Strickland to guilty-plea context; prejudice requires reasonable probability defendant would have gone to trial)
Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (counsel must give correct advice on clear consequences of plea; defendant must show rejecting plea would have been rational)
Lee v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1958 (distinguishes errors about trial prospects from errors about consequences of plea; courts must assess the comparative consequences to determine prejudice)
People v. Rissley, 206 Ill. 2d 403 (Illinois application of Strickland/Hill in guilty-plea ineffective-assistance claims)
People v. Hall, 217 Ill. 2d 324 (Illinois requires showing of innocence or a plausible defense when claim pertains to trial prospects rather than consequences of plea)