Hill v. Lockhart

474 U.S. 52 (1985)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

(Rehnquist, J.) D was charged with murder. D's court-appointed attorney negotiated a plea agreement pursuant to which the State, in return for petitioner's plea of guilty to both the murder and theft charges, agreed to recommend that the trial judge impose concurrent prison sentences of 35 years for the murder and 10 years for the theft. Petitioner signed a written 'plea statement' indicating that he understood the charges against him and the consequences of pleading guilty, that his plea had not been induced 'by any force, threat, or promise' apart from the plea agreement itself, that he realized that the trial judge was not bound by the plea agreement and retained the sole 'power of sentence,' and that he had discussed the plea agreement with his attorney and was satisfied with his attorney's advice. The last two lines of the 'plea statement,' just above petitioner's signature, read: 'I am aware of everything in this document. I fully understand what my rights are, and I voluntarily plead guilty because I am guilty as charged.' The plea hearing revealed the standard issues of voluntariness, understanding, intelligent and that no 'threats or promises' had been made to him other than the plea agreement itself, and entered a plea of guilty to both charges. The trial judge accepted the guilty plea and sentenced petitioner in accordance with the State's recommendations. The trial judge also granted petitioner credit for the time he had already served in prison, and told petitioner that 'you will be required to serve at least one-third of your time before you are eligible for parole.' Two years later D filed a federal habeas corpus petition alleging, inter alia, that his guilty plea was involuntary by reason of ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney had misinformed him as to his parole eligibility date. The District Court denied habeas relief without a hearing. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment.