Opinion ID: 2220541
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Inducement of Plea

Text: [10] McLeod alleged in his postconviction motion that his counsel was ineffective for having induce [sic] [McLeod] to accept the plea agreement by assuring him that `more than likely you'll be released before age forty', all the while knowing that [McLeod] would be given a life sentence if he plead [sic] to the charge of Murder in the First Degree. McLeod further alleged that his attorney advised him that if he were to take responsibility for his actions and show remorse, `Someday, they'll see your case and take into account your age, nature of the crime and circumstances that lead [sic] to this grave tragedy.' McLeod alleged that this led him to believe that he would in fact be sentenced to a term of years and that had he understood the reality of his situation, he would have refused to plead and insisted upon a trial. As reflected in the record of the plea hearing, McLeod specifically denied that any promises had been made to induce his plea and that he was not subjected to any threats, pressure, or coercion. He also expressed his understanding that life imprisonment was the only sentence which could be imposed by the court. The statements which McLeod now attributes to his lawyer do not constitute a basis for postconviction relief. At most, he has alleged that his lawyer advised him there was a chance of future clemency in the form of commutation, which was consistent with the court's statement at sentencing that McLeod would remain in prison for the rest of his natural life unless and until his sentence was commuted to a term of years by the Board of Pardons and that he would not be eligible for parole prior to any such commutation.