Alexander v. the State, 342 Ga. App. 106

Calvin Alexander entered non-negotiated guilty pleas to multiple sexual offenses against minors and was sentenced as a recidivist to concurrent long prison terms; parole ineligibility as a recidivist was a consequence of the plea.
On direct appeal, Alexander argued plea counsel was ineffective for failing to advise him he would be ineligible for parole; the Court of Appeals initially affirmed under precedent treating parole ineligibility as a collateral consequence.
The Georgia Supreme Court granted certiorari, overruled the prior precedent, and held that failing to inform a client of parole ineligibility can be constitutionally deficient; the case was remanded for Strickland analysis.
On remand, the trial court denied Alexander’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea without an evidentiary hearing, finding he failed to prove both deficient performance and prejudice.
The trial court discounted Alexander’s testimony that he would not have pled guilty if advised about parole ineligibility, citing strong evidence of guilt, Alexander’s belief he would be convicted at trial, and that the plea produced a more lenient and certain sentence than the potential maximum at trial.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding Alexander failed the Strickland prejudice prong and thus was not entitled to withdraw his plea.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel’s failure to advise Alexander he would be ineligible for parole as a recidivist constitutes deficient performance	Counsel failed to inform Alexander of a consequence (parole ineligibility) that was material to his decision to plead	Even if counsel erred, the court should assess prejudice; parole ineligibility may be collateral and not dispositive	Court did not reach deficiency on the merits, finding prejudice not shown (no relief)
Whether Alexander showed prejudice under Strickland (would have gone to trial but for counsel’s failure)	Alexander testified he would not have pled if informed about parole ineligibility	Trial court argued Alexander’s testimony was not credible given strong evidence of guilt, belief he would be convicted, and that plea yielded a lesser/certain sentence than trial exposure	Held: Alexander failed to show a reasonable probability he would have insisted on trial; prejudice prong not met

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishing two-prong ineffective assistance test) (1984)
Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (applies Strickland to guilty-plea challenges) (1985)
Alexander v. State, 297 Ga. 59 (Georgia Supreme Court ruling that counsel’s failure to inform client of parole ineligibility can be constitutionally deficient) (2015)
Williams v. Duffy, 270 Ga. 580 (previous Georgia precedent treating parole ineligibility as collateral; overruled) (1999)
Cox v. Howerton, 290 Ga. 693 (explaining burden to show particular emphasis on parole eligibility in Strickland/Hill prejudice inquiry) (2012)
Gomez v. State, 300 Ga. 571 (affirming trial court’s credibility findings in ineffective-assistance plea context) (2017)