Opinion ID: 2632557
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Hill test.

Text: In Hill v. Lockhart , the defendant pleaded guilty to charges of first-degree murder and theft after prosecutors agreed to recommend a sentence significantly below the maximum that could have been imposed. 474 U.S. at 53-54, 106 S.Ct. at 367-368, 88 L.Ed.2d at 206-207. Before pleading guilty, the defendant was told by counsel he would be eligible for parole after serving one-third of his sentence. Id. at 54, 106 S.Ct. at 368, 88 L.Ed.2d at 207. In actuality, because the defendant had previously been convicted of a felony he would not be eligible for parole until one-half of his sentence had been completed. Id. at 55, 106 S.Ct. at 368, 88 L.Ed.2d at 207. The defendant in Hill filed a federal habeas corpus petition, alleging that because counsel had misinformed him as to his parole eligibility, his guilty plea was involuntary. Id. at 54-55, 106 S.Ct. at 368-369, 88 L.Ed.2d at 207-208. Applying the Strickland test, the United States Supreme Court wrote that in order to satisfy the `prejudice' requirement, the defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial. Id. at 59, 106 S.Ct. at 370, 88 L.Ed.2d at 210. There, the Court held that the defendant had not been prejudiced by the mistaken advice of counsel because he did not allege in his habeas petition that, had counsel correctly informed him about his parole eligibility date he would have pleaded not guilty and insisted on going to trial. Id. at 60, 106 S.Ct. at 371, 88 L.Ed.2d at 211. Additionally, the defendant mentioned no special circumstances indicating his parole eligibility was an important part of his decision to plead guilty. Id. Here, unlike in Hill, McKeeth has alleged that without counsel's errors he would not have pleaded guilty. Had he known the plea agreement and reservation of rights did not contain the terms he was led to believe it contained, asserts McKeeth, no guilty plea would have been entered. Also unlike in Hill, McKeeth has offered evidence in the form of testimony by himself, his former counsel, and one of the original prosecutors that his mistaken understanding regarding the contents of the plea agreement was an important part of his decision to plead guilty.