Hinton v. Alabama, ___ U.S. ___, 134 S.Ct. 1081, 1089, 188 L.Ed.2d 1 (Feb. 24, 2014) (per curiam) (An attorney's ignorance of a point of law that is fundamental to his case combined with his failure to perform basic research on that point is a quintessential example of unreasonable performance under Strickland.).

In Hinton v. Alabama, ___ U.S. ___, 134 S.Ct. 1081, 1085, 188 L.Ed.2d 1 (Feb. 24, 2014) (per curiam), the Supreme Court held counsel was ineffective for failing to seek funds to hire an expert where that failure was based on a mistaken belief that available funding was capped at $1,000. The attorney failed to do so because he was himself unaware that Alabama law no longer imposed a specific limit and instead allowed reimbursement for any expenses reasonably incurred. This decision may provide authority for a broader rule that counsel renders ineffective assistance where the failure to take necessary action occurred because of counsels mistaken belief concerning a matter of law. This can provide authority for a claim based on defense counsels failure to investigate the defendants immigration status, which led to counsels failure to investigate the immigration consequences of a plea, failure to advise the defendant concerning them, and failure to defend the client against them.

The court held:

The first prong"constitutional deficiency"is necessarily linked to the practice and expectations of the legal community: The proper measure of attorney performance remains simply reasonableness under prevailing professional norms. Padilla, supra, at 366, 130 S.Ct. 1473 (quoting Strickland, supra, at 688, 104 S.Ct. 2052). In any case presenting an ineffectiveness claim, the performance inquiry must be whether counsel's assistance was reasonable considering all the circumstances. Strickland, supra, at 688, 104 S.Ct. 2052 Under that standard, it was unreasonable for Hinton's lawyer to fail to seek additional funds to hire an expert where that failure was based not on any strategic choice but on a mistaken belief that available funding was capped at $1,000.

(Id. at 1088.) The court continued:

An attorney's ignorance of a point of law that is fundamental to his case combined with his failure to perform basic research on that point is a quintessential example of unreasonable performance under Strickland. See, e.g., Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 395, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000) (finding deficient performance where counsel failed to conduct an investigation that would have uncovered extensive records [that could be used for death penalty mitigation purposes], not because of any strategic calculation but because they incorrectly thought that state law barred access to such records); Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365, 385, 106 S.Ct. 2574, 91 L.Ed.2d 305 (1986) (finding deficient performance where counsel failed to conduct pretrial discovery and that failure was not based on strategy, but on counsel's mistaken belie[f] that the State was obliged to take the initiative and turn over all of its inculpatory evidence to the defense).

(Id. at 1089.)