Whether the Third Circuit misapplied Strickland and Slack standards in denying Brown's ineffective assistance of counsel claim when substantial evidence suggested his guilty plea was involuntarily entered

Brown alleged that trial counsel was ineffective for explicitly advising him to plea guilty to charge not found in the indictment, in a plea colloquy where trial court accepted Brown's guilty plea without him been informed of the mandatory cannotes for a valid plea Counsel's promise and incorrect advice misled Brown in believing he would receive a 10 yrs. sentence arising from plea agreement with DA and judge, counsel admitted in court that the sentence was illegal and that Brown all along maintanied his innocent. Brown try to withdraw his guilty plea at sentencing but counsel coerced him to take the deal that did not exist, Brown was convicted in large part by counsel's admission of guilt at plea hearing and Brown pleading guilty. The case thus present the following questions. I Did the third Circuit err in misapplication of Strickland and Slack when Brown had made a substantial showing of undisputed factual evidence apparent on the record that his plea was entered involuntarily and counsel was ineffective for providing incorrect advice a decision conflict with it's and other circuit and contrary to clearly established Federal law and 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) & (2). II Did the Third Circuit err affirming the denial of Brown's § 2254 petition where the District Court failed to conduct an evidentiary hearing to resolve the factual disputes. 1