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

Summary

The court held that Coleman's Rule 32 petition adequately pleaded ineffective assistance of counsel because it alleged that counsel misrepresented his eligibility for parole and work release, that Coleman relied on those representations in pleading guilty, and that he would have gone to trial otherwise. Because those allegations, if true, would entitle Coleman to relief, the petition was meritorious on its face and could not be summarily dismissed; an evidentiary hearing was required. Justice Stuart, concurring in the rationale in part and in the result, would emphasize that an affirmative misrepresentation about eligibility is materially different from speculative advice about when parole or work release might occur.