Whether the State improperly determined the prejudice prong underlying the test set-forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1964) as to erroneous advice with respect to the parole eligibility date, which was a deprivation of the opportunity to make a reasonably informed decision on whether to accept the People's plea offer

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED oe I. Whether the State improperly determined the prejudice prong underlying the test set-forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 : U.S. 668 (1964) as to erroneous advice with respect to the parole eligibility date, which was a deprivation of the opportunity to make a reasonably informed decision on whether to accept the People’s plea offer. II. Whether the State improperly interpreted and construed this Court's holding in Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985), with respect to the showing that but for counsel's deficient performance, a plea of not ; guilty would have been entered and the insistence that triai be held.