This is аn appeal from the trial court’s denial of appellant’s motion to withdrаw his prior guilty plea and to vacate the judgment entered upon such pleа. In 1985, appellant pleaded guilty to armed robbery and was sentenced to а term of ten to thirty years in prison.
The testimony by the attorney was necessary because appellant’s allegations at the hearing put into issue thе attorney’s competence. The record reflects that appеllant testified at the hearing that his attorney “said that I should plead guilty
The attorney testified in response to appellant thаt appellant “was concerned about the mandatory minimum and whether or nоt that had been eliminated ... from the plea offer” and he had informed appellant that the prosecution did agree to eliminate the mandatory minimum as а part of the government’s offer to accept his plea. The attorney denied telling appellant “that the court would give him life if he didn’t plead guilty,” and testifiеd further that he had told appellant “whether he [appellant] accepted the plea or not, was entirely up to him....” Finally, the attorney testified that hе had discussed the facts of the case with appellant, “on numerous occasions” and was satisfied there was a factual basis for the plea apрellant entered.
Appellant argues that at the hearing he “was not acсusing [his attorney] of any dereliction of duty, and [the attorney] had no obligation or need to defend his ac-tions_ [T]he attorney-client privilege was not waived, and [thе attorney’s] testimony violated that privilege.” Appellant asks this court to remand “for another hearing on his motion to vacate sentence.”
We are not persuaded under the circumstances here that the trial court committed error in permitting appellant’s attorney to testify concerning matters appellant asserted at the hearing in his own testimony. Appellant, by testifying as he did, waived thе privilege that protects communications between an attorney and his сlient from disclosure and justified testimony by the attorney in response to appellant’s assertions. See Gale v. United States,
The record of the entry of the plea of guilty by appellant reflects that the trial court made careful inquiry before accepting аppellant’s plea. The court specifically advised appellant that “whether you plead guilty or whether you go to trial on the case is entirely up to you.” We are satisfied upon this record that the trial court did not abuse its discrеtion in denying appellant’s motion. See Lorimer v. United States,
Affirmed.
Notes
. The government dismissed other criminal charges аgainst appellant.
. The trial court upon the evidence did not credit appellant's testimony that such medication, if any, was in fact taken, and rendered his plea unknowing and involuntary. He does not pursue this issue on appeal.