Ex Parte William C. Coleman. (in Re William C. Coleman v. State of Alabama)

Summary

The court held that Coleman's Rule 32 petition sufficiently pleaded ineffective assistance of counsel based on alleged misrepresentations that he would be eligible for parole and work release after pleading guilty. Because the petition alleged both deficient performance and that Coleman would have gone to trial absent the misrepresentations, and identified circumstances showing the importance of parole and work-release eligibility to his decision, summary dismissal was improper. The court reversed and directed an evidentiary hearing; Justice Stuart concurred in part in the rationale and in the result, emphasizing the distinction between speculative misinformation about parole timing and concrete misinformation about eligibility.