Was Jennings denied due process and equal protection when the trial court refused to allow him to withdraw his guilty plea?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED This case involves a juvenile defendant who was coaxed into pleading guilty, allegedly, under Nort Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91 S.Ct. 160 (1970). In exchange for his plea, Damari Jennings (“Jennings”) was sentenced to life with parole at hard labor. The trial court was about to reject the plea because the State did not present a sufficient factual basis even under North Carolina v. Alford, and because Jennings maintained his innocence. Jennings’s trial counsel and the State convinced the trial court to accept the plea anyway. Jennings appealed and the state appellate court remanded with instructions for the State to present a sufficient factual basis and for the trial court to explain to Jennings what a life sentence in Louisiana means which leads to the following questions: _ 1. Under the requirements of Boykin v. Alabama, was Jennings denied due process and equal protection when the trial court refused to allow him to withdraw his guilty plea after the appellate court’s remand? 2. Did Jennings’s trial counsel render ineffective assistance with , his misplaced advice to plead guilty because Jennings would be parole eligible? 3. Did Jennings’s trial counsel’s performance fall below the Sixth Amendment’s standard when he abdicated his duties and responsibilities to Jennings, especially where counsel failed to investigate the State’s case against Jennings? ii