sentencing. The court then accepted Muckle's guilty plea and imposed the state's recommended sentence of 20 years, to serve 15.
At the hearing on Muckle's motion to withdraw the plea, he testified that his former lawyer had failed to contact potential defense witnesses and effectively had "abandoned" the case. Muckle had moved for the appointment of new counsel, but that motion was still pending on the date of his plea hearing. Because the assistant district attorney had told him that the plea offer was valid only for the day of the hearing, Muckle believed his only alternative was proceeding quickly to trial with an unprepared lawyer. Thus, Muckle claimed that he had felt "coerced" into pleading guilty. He conceded, however, that he had not mentioned his concerns to thetrial court, but instead had affirmed that he was satisfied with his lawyer. Muckle claimed that he had agreed to plead guilty only because his lawyer had told him that he could later withdraw the plea.
Muckle's trial lawyer testified that after being appointed to represent Muckle, he had spoken with the investigating police detective to learn about the state's evidence against his client. He also testified that employees of his office had spoken with the victim and with Muckle's mother and brother, and he denied Muckle's charge that he had failed to explore possible defenses. Because Muckle faced a mandatory sentence of life without parole due to a prior armed robbery conviction if the state elected to file a recidivist notice, the lawyer had contacted the district attorney's