Guilty pleas and sentencing advice
David Scott Batchelor v. Sampson
In brief
- Where it stands
- Dismissed
Petition denied.
- What it’s about
- David Scott Batchelor asked the U.S.
- Who it affects
- The denial leaves the state-court ruling in place for Batchelor, but the Supreme Court did not decide whether his plea was valid.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
Supreme Court to review whether his guilty plea was valid after his lawyer allegedly gave incorrect advice about the punishment allowed by law; a state court had upheld the plea based on the professional understanding at the time. The Court refused to hear the case (denied review), so it did not decide that question.
The state court had upheld Batchelor's plea based on the professional understanding at the time of his lawyer's advice.
Question presented
Is a guilty plea constitutionally valid when it is induced by counsel ’ s materially incorrect advice concerning the punishment authorized by statute, and the state court upholds the plea on the ground that the advice reflected a prevailing professional understanding of the time which was later rejected as inconsistent with the statute ’ s unambiguous text?
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Show 1 moreShow fewer
Brief added: Petition
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.