Was counsel so deficient in this case that it was not necessary to prove prejudice (i.e., that prejudice was presumed)?

Question

Heath, who had four D.U.I. convictions prior to 1990, pled guilty to drunk driving charges in 2000 that injured three teenagers. Represented by Public Defender Jason Shwiller, he entered a plea with a sentence recommendation of thirty years, to serve between four and fifteen years. Shwiller advised Heath that he could expect to be sentenced "at the lower end" of the range. After hearing victim impact evidence, the court sentenced him to 15 years in confinement plus 15 years on probation. A motion to withdraw the plea failed. Heath had no memory of the collision and informed Shwiller that his co-worker may have been driving the truck that caused the collision. Shwiller was given the witness's name but did not try to find him, telling Heath's niece that his work load was so large that he could get nothing done if he "looked into every nook and cranny." Shwiller told the court before sentencing that Heath was the driver and said "There's nothing I can say to excuse what Mr. Heath has done. There's no good spin that I can put on it. He consumed a great deal of alcohol, he drove on Georgia's road and caused a terrible tragedy." He did not review victim impact evidence. On cross-examination during a hearing to withdraw the plea, Shwiller admitted that he could not recall the elements of the offense of serious injury by vehicle and that he conducted no research to determine whether the victims' injuries fit within the statutory definition of "serious." Shwiller admitted that he never consulted with Heath in person during the 13 months between arraignment and the entry of the plea. Heath appealed from the denial of his petition to withdraw his plea, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel.
What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

Initial Court of Appeals ruling that Heath's legal representation was so lacking that he was entitled to a presumption of prejudice reversed by Georgia Supreme Court; on second appeal, the Court of Appeals found that Shwiller's ineffective assistance prejudiced the case.