Opinion: 431 U.S. 63 (1977)

HOLDING:  Guilty pleas present formidable barriers to post-conviction attacks made in collateral proceedings, but such challenges are not subject to summary dismissal if supported by sufficient factual assertions showing the guilty plea was affected by misunderstanding, duress, or misrepresentation.

Respondent Gary Darrell Allison was indicted in North Carolina for several crimes and thereafter pled guilty to a single count of attempted safe robbery.  In response to questions during the then-applicable procedure for entering a guilty plea, Allison acknowledged that he understood he could be imprisoned for a range of 10 years to life and that no one had made any promises or threats to influence him to plead guilty.  The trial judge accepted the plea on a form which stated that Allison fully understood the consequences of his guilty plea and then sentenced him to 17-21 years in prison.  Allison sought habeas corpus relief in the Middle District of North Carolina, claiming that his attorney promised Allison he would only get a 10-year sentence if he entered a guilty plea.  The District Court dismissed his petition for relief, stating that the form signed by the state court judge showed Allison had chosen to plead guilty knowingly, voluntarily, and with full awareness of the consequences.

The Fourth Circuit reversed and the Supreme Court agreed.  The Court held that Allison’s petition for relief should not have been dismissed because it made specific factual allegations regarding the promises made by his lawyer, not just vague or conclusory statements.  The Court held that “solemn declarations in open court carry a strong presumption of verity” that cannot be rebutted by conclusory assertions.  But federal courts “cannot fairly adopt a per se rule excluding all possibility” that a defendant’s representations at the time his guilty plea were the product of misunderstanding, duress, or misrepresentation.  Allison and other defendants are “entitled to careful consideration and plenary processing of [their claims], including full opportunity for the presentation of the relevant facts.”