"Ineffective assistance of counsel constitutes the kind of fundamental error that may subject a conviction to attack through a writ of error coram nobis." Grooms v. United States, CR No. 3:09-1174-CMC, 2013 WL 5771180, at *2 (D.S.C. Oct. 23, 2013) (citing Akinsade, 686 F.3d at 252). "To prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim under the Sixth Amendment, [][Robinson] must show both that (1) his counsel was professionally unreasonable and (2) his counsel's deficient performance prejudiced [][Robinson]'s defense."

Additionally, the PCR court found Petitioner failed the prejudice prong because the substance of Petitioner's potential appeal was without merit. If an attorney disregards a specific instruction from a client to file an appeal and the attorney fails to do so, such action is per se ineffective assistance of counsel, and the defendant is entitled to a belated appeal without showing the appeal would have merit. Rodriquez, 395 U.S at 329-330; Peguero v. United States, 526 U.S. 23, 28 (1999)("defendant entitled to a new appeal without showing that his appeal would likely have had merit"); United States v. Peak, 992 F.2d 39, 42 (4th Cir. 1993)(Sixth Amendment deprivation even if lost appeal may not have had a reasonable probability of success); United States v. Poindexter, 492 F.3d 263, 273 (4th Cir. 2007)(attorney required to file appeal when instructed to do so by client, "even when doing so would be contrary to plea agreement and harmful to client's interests"); Grooms v. United States, 2013 WL 5771180, *4 (D.S.C. Oct. 23, 2013)(where counsel fails to perform ministerial task of filing notice of appeal, exception to Strickland's cause and prejudice applies, and such failure constitutes per se ineffectiveness without further showing of prejudice); See also Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387, 397, 105 S.Ct. 830 (1985)(affirming lower courts' determination that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to perfect direct appeal by filing "statement of appeal" as required by Kentucky law); Hernandez v. United States, 202 F.3d 486, 489 (2d Cir. 2000)(no distinction between counsel filing untimely notice of appeal, not filing a notice of appeal or filing a timely notice of appeal but neglecting to perfect the appeal). Thus, the PCR court misapplied federal law and such application was objectively unreasonable.

On remand Mr. Hutton will be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea and stand trial for the offenses for which he was indicted. See Grooms v. United States, No. 3:09-1174-CMC, 2013 WL 5771180, at *4 (D.S.C. Oct. 23, 2013) ("where the plea was accepted due to ineffective assistance of counsel, the proper remedy is to vacate the conviction (that is, allow petitioner to withdraw his plea)."). IV.

. See Grooms v. United States, No. 3:09-1174-CMC, 2013 WL 5771180 , at *4 (D.S.C. Oct. 23, 2013) (“where the plea was accepted due to ineffective assistance of counsel, the proper remedy is to vacate the conviction (that is, allow petitioner to withdraw his plea).”).