Whether the standard for reviewing a petitioner's allegations of special circumstances is subjective or objective, and whether an evidentiary hearing is required before a court can reject the allegations

QUESTION PRESENTED Extending Strickland v. Washington’s general prejudice standard for ineffective assistance of counsel claims to ineffective assistance of counsel stemming from bad advice during a plea, this Court affirmed the denial of an evidentiary hearing because a habeas petitioner “alleged no special circumstances that might support the conclusion that he placed particular emphasis on his parole eligibility in deciding whether or not to plead guilty.” Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 60 (1985). Even though Harris did allege special circumstances that might support the conclusion that he placed particular emphasis on his parole eligibility in deciding whether or not to plead guilty, he was denied an evidentiary hearing based on credibility. The first question is whether the standard for reviewing a petitioner’s allegations of special circumstances is subjective or objective. The second question is, if the standard is subjective, whether an evidentiary hearing is required before a court can reject the allegations. 1